Delhi Court May 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.
Modi Xerox Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC230Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal arises out of Order-in-Appeal No. 81-CE/MRT/89 dated 28-4-1989 of the Collector.2. The case of the appellants is that they are engaged in the manufacture of Photocopiers classified under Tariff Item 33D which is one of the items notified under Rule 56A(1) by a Notification No.122/84. The appellants filed an application dated 19-12-1984 stating that "They will be receiving the imported consignment in CKD/SKD condition" and seeking permission to avail the benefit under Rule 56A.On 18th March, 1985, the Assistant Collector communicated the necessary permission.3. On importation of the impugned goods they filed 12 Bills of Entry for home consumption in Delhi and were assessed by Delhi Customs. 6 Bills of Entry were filed at Delhi which were covered by 47 ex-bond Bills of Entry filed at Rampur. The Customs Authorities classified some of the goods imported under Tariff Item 90.10. They have also classified it for the purpose of countervailing duty under Tariff Item 33D of the ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. M.M. Rubber and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT387TriDel
1. By order-in-original No. 34/84, the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, held, as barred by limitation, the amount demanded from the appellants towards duty on biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) films as set out in the show cause notice dated 25-10-1983, He also directed the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise to examine the duty liability on polypropylene granules. In view of these findings, the Collector dropped further proceedings against the appellants. The Central Board of Excise & Customs (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') called for, under Section 35E(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and examined, the records of the proceedings leading to the said order of the Collector for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality and propriety of the said order. After considering the matter at length, the Board directed the Collector, under the provisions of the aforesaid Section 35E(1) of the Act, to apply to thi...
Shalimar Group Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT390TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, whereby he ordered for the confiscation of the imported goods namely polyester tow u/s 111 (d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 with an option to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and also directing that these goods be classified and assessed to duty under Heading 56.01/04 of CET read with Notification No. 38/83 dated 1-3-1983 as amended and Auxiliary duty, C.V. duty etc. shall be payable as per law and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-.2. Facts so far as relevant for the purpose of this order are that the appellants have filed the present appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 13-9-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, which was received in the Registry on 1-3-1985. In Column 2 of the Memo of appeal (EA 3 form) the appellants had stated the date of the impugned order ...
Kerala State Electronics Dev. Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC262
1. At the outset Shri K. Narasimhan, Ld. Advocate prayed for admitting the Misc. Application for additional evidence and additional grounds. "Appellants submit that after having ascertained that the impugned goods were still lying in the Bonded Warehouse based upon a report from Asstt. Collector (Corr.), the Collector of Customs (Appeals) should have held that upon clearance from the warehouse any time on or after 1-3-1983 the impugned goods would be eligible for grant of exemption against the revised description of Sl. No. 76 of Notification No. 118/80-Cus., dated 19-6-1980, as amended by Notification No. 55/83-Cus., dated 1-3-1983. The final conclusion of the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) that the description under Serial No. 76 of the notification aforesaid as it stood at the time of import of the impugned goods would determine the rate of duty is not sustainable in law." 2A. The additional evidences were the two ex-bond bills of entry under cover of which goods were clear...
Collector of Customs Vs. Jyoti Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC460Tri(Delhi)
1. The Tribunal vide its order No. 844/84-B dated 15th November, 1984 had disposed of the appeal filed by the revenue and had dismissed the appeal No. F. No. CD(SB)(T)A. No. 1285/80-B. Thereafter, the respondents moved a miscellaneous application registered with the Registry vide miscellaneous application No. C/Misc./61/89 requesting the Tribunal for the issue of directions for the consequential effect to be given to the respondents in view of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its miscellaneous order No. 71/89-B2 dated 13th October, 1989 had directed the appellant to grant refund by 31st December, 1989 and the department was to report compliance of the same to the Registry by 15th January, 1990 and the matter was to come up for mention on 22nd January, 1990. On 13th October, 1989 Shri C. V.Durghyaya, JDR had appeared and stated that the revenue had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, but conceded that no stay was granted.He had pleaded that the original records...
K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD174(Delhi)
1. The assessee a limited company, has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 31-3-1987 and has raised two issues.2. The first of the issues relates to the manner of working out the perquisite value of car for arriving at the remuneration paid to the Directors for consideration under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act.The plea made in this behalf by the learned counsel for the assessee.Shri Ajay Vohra was that two of its Directors Shri K.G. Khosla and Shri J.C. Khosla were allowed to use of the car for their personal purposes.The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee that the element of personal use of the cars by its Directors was negligible.The Assessing-Officer disallowed the depreciation on the cars used by one of the directors and also considering the decision of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1980-81 disallowed the actual expenditure on the cars. The assessee was aggrieved and claimed relief in respect of the depreciat...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hico Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT381TriDel
1. This is Revenue's appeal against the impugned order in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay dated 18-12-1985 by which he set aside the order-in-original dated 4-1-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.2. The respondents M/s. Hico Products Ltd. are manufacturers of the products (1) Dimethicon - 20 (2) Dimethicon - 350 (3) Dimethicon - 2000 (4) Dimethicon -1000 and (5) Simethicon and (6) Dimethicon - 100. They were filing classification list for products from Sr. No. 1 to 5 under Tariff Item 68 of CET w.e.f. 10-8-19.82 for the product against Sr. No.6, they were filing classification list under Tariff Item 68 w.e.f.24-1-1983. On certain occasions, they have filed classification in respect of the above products under Tariff Item 15-A on insistence by the Central Excise officers and have paid duty under protest, claiming that these products are classifiable under Tariff Item 68.3. The Department, therefore, drew samples of the above produ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ambica Chemical Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC51Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue challenging the order-in-appeal dated 21-4-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, in an application under Section 35E(4) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Eluru.3. The respondents are manufacturers of 'Agarbathies' falling under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile First Schedule of the Act (now classified under Heading 3308.10) attracting nil rate of duty. The respondents have been manufacturing the product without the aid of power and they contended that as it is 'hand-made', it is 'handicraft' coming within the purview of exemption Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982.So, they have not taken out central excise licence or filed classification list contending that they are exempt from this procedure under Notification No. 179/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Eluru, on remand from the C...
Jagatjit Cotton Textile Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC126Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-appeal No.476-CE/CHG/85 dated 16-9-1985 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The issue involved in this case is whether recovery of Caprolactum amounts to manufacture and such caprolactum is excisable under Tariff Item No. 14-AA.3. The facts of the case, in brief, relating to this issue are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Nylon yarn falling under Tariff Item 18 by using duty paid indigenous or Imported virgin caprolactum as the principal raw material among various raw materials.During the course of manufacture of Nylon yarn, certain wastes arise.This waste contains depolymerised caprolactum. It appeared that the wastes are reacted with the help of steam and is allowed to melt. The melt is passed through the condensation/concentration Tank and fed in the water wash Tanks. The wash water collected from polymerisation/De-polymerisation is distilled and passed through the vessel for monomer an...
Ashoka Batteries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC316Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants have filed four appeals arising out of the following orders-in-appeal. 1. E/1506/86-B1 : Against the order-in-appeal No. 549, 550 and 551 dated 20-12-1985. The order of the Collector (Appeals) in this appeal is with reference to the order-in-original No. 62-63/ACK.II/85 dated 31-5-1985 involving two refund claims for an amount of Rs. 1,57,500.01 and Rs. 37,137.22. 2. E/1507/86-B1: Against order-in-appeal No. 552-CE/KNP/85 dated 20-12-1985. The order of the Collector (Appeals) is with reference to the order-in-original C.No. CE/Int/T.I./31 (2)/80 dated 11-5-1984 involving entitlement of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 80/80 dated 18-6-1980. 3. E/1508/86-B.1: Against the order-in-appeal No. 549, 550 and 551-CE/KNP/85 dated 20-12-1985. The order of the Collector (Appeals) is with reference to the order-in-original No. 41-42.ACK-II/85 dated 31-5-1985 which involves refund of two amounts - Rs. 1,36,777.35 and Rs. 8,321.75. 4. E/1509/86-B.1: Against the ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »