Delhi Court June 1990 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mehra Spinning Mills Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC363Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order of the Additional Collector dated 9.2.90.2. The learned Counsel stated that the appellants received a Show Cause Notice alleging that their unit was manifested as Importer/Consignee in respect of container which landed at ICD on 25.7.87.3. It was also alleged that no Bill of Entry was filed for clearing the goods.4. It was their contention that they had not placed any indent with M/s. Novel and Novice Textiles, Amsterdom who were the suppliers in this case; and that the consignment had no connection with them. In this respect he would draw attention to the correspondence marked as Annexure 'C'.5. The appellants had also filed an affidavit denying the import of consignment by their firm.6. The Additional Collector has further imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on them (besides confiscating the consignment).7. He stated that they have got a good prima facie case, and are financially hard up and not in a position to ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Rambal (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC684Tri(Delhi)
1.1 Respondents had filed a classification list on 18-3-1981 in respect of 625 items for classifying them under T.I. 68. Later on, by a notice dated 20-7-1981 a show cause notice was issued by the department asking the respondents to show cause as to why "certain items having threads should not be reclassified under T.I. 52 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Rules, 1944." A reply to this show cause notice was submitted by the respondents on 11-9-1981. At this stage it is asserted by the learned advocate that the goods were being cleared by the assessee under T.I.68 as per approval of the classification list. After about 2 years a corrigendum to the show cause notice dated 20-7-1981 was issued on 9-8-1983. This corrigendum we find makes some verbal changes in the show cause notice dated 20-7-1981. The total effect of the show cause notice dated 20-7-1981 read with corrigendum to the show cause notice dated 9-8-1983 is that no demand of duty has been made by the department and ...
Glass and Ceramic Decorators Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT158TriDel
1. These appeals arise out of the various orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay and a common issue is involved in all these appeals from the same appellant which is, whether the consignment of ceramic colours imported by the appellants would be eligible for exemption under Notification 210/71 dated 25-12-1971. This notification exempted ceramic colours falling under Item 14 of Central Excise Tariff from the whole of Central Excise duty leviable thereon.The appellants herein carried out the process of multi-colour printing on glass bottles for which process they had imported ceramic colours.They were paying Customs duty under Tariff Heading 32.04/12 and no additional Customs duty (CVD) was paid till 1981 when Additional duty of Customs (CVD) was levied on the goods under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. The appellants paid the CVD, cleared the goods and subsequently filed refund applications. At about latter half of 1983, the Custom House started levying CVD on th...
Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT168TriDel
1. At the outset, the counsel for the appellants represented that the arguments in E/A 3102/84-D cover the arguments in two other appeals, namely E/2118/85-D and E/2119/85-D which were transferred from the Southern Regional Bench. On the basis of his representation, we proceed to pass a common order in all 3 appeals.2. Under Notification No. 130/83-C.E., dated 27-4-1983, the Central Government exempted sugar produced from the sugar year 1980-81 and thereafter by a new sugar factory or an expansion project sugar factory and cleared as additional entitlement under the incentive scheme from excise duty leviable thereon as is in excess of the amount of Rs. 197- per quintal.3. The appellants filed a claim for refund-of duty on 13-10-1983 in respect of clearances of sugar effected during the period 26-6-1981 to 27-4-1983, which was rejected on the ground that Notification 130/83 was prospective in effect and would not apply to clearances effected before the date of its issue. The appellate ...
Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC259
1. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad has filed an appeal being aggrieved from a common order disposing of 13 appeals passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. In column No. 3 the date of communication has been mentioned as 7th May, 1986 and the said appeal was received in the Registry on 28th July,1986. Thus the appeal was filed in time. Thereafter, the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad has filed 12 supplementary appeals and has also filed 12 applications for condonation of delay. Shri S. Chakraborty, the learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the appellant has pleaded that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi had disposed of 13 appeals by a common order and as such, the appellant should have filed 13 appeals before the Tribunal, whereas bona-fidely the appellant had filed only one appeal. He pleaded that as soon as the appellant discovered that 12 more appeals are to be filed, he filed the same and the delay in the filing of the supp...
Apoorva Impex Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC619Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants imported a consignment of Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) per S.S. Sincerity at the port of Bombay. It was declared in bill of entry No. 2231 dated 6-3-1987 as "Titanium Dioxide Rutile - A Prepared Pigment" and clearance was sought under Licence P/K/3108651/C/XX/97/B/85 dated 23-12-1985 which was valid for the import inter alia of TiO2 (Rutile Grade). Pending test, 80% of the goods was released. The test revealed the goods to be a white pasty mass containing TiO2, artificial resin (acrylic type) and solvent.After issue of show cause notice and holding adjudication proceedings, the Dy. Collector of Customs, by Order dated 2-11-1987, held that the licence was not valid to cover the import. He confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 but allowed redemption of the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 75,000/- only. He also denied the benefit of the Customs Notification No. 444/76 and demanded Rs. 1,35,185.64 as short-levied duty on the consignment on the ba...
Yusuf Adam Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT584TriDel
1. The appellant, originally, filed this appeal in Special Bench 'A' bearing No. A. No. C/192/88A. Along with filing this appeal, appellant also preferred stay petition bearing No. C/Stay/113/88A. The stay petition was heard by Special Bench 'A' and vide Order No. 60/88A dated 20-4-1988 dismissed the stay petition. The stay petition was dismissed because it was observed by the Bench that the appellant should be in a position to deposit the amount of penalty as the appellant had said that he would be able to borrow money from his relatives and deposit the amount with the bank and obtain bank guarantee and provide the same and in that case the appellant can as well deposit the amount in cash with the Government. The Bench also transferred the matter to the North Regional Bench.3. Meantime, the appellant preferred Special Civil Application No.2535/88 in the High Court of Gujarat under provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein he has challenged the vires of Section 11...
African Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1990
Reported in: (1993)(64)ELT497TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal No. S/49-6/82 SUB of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dated 23rd October, 1982.2. The appellants imported a consignment of 133 bags containing 3724 kgs. of Star Aniseed Chinese FAQ and declared the value at Rs. 49,163/- CIF Bombay under bill of entry dated 3rd February, 1981. On 7th September, 1981 the business premises of the appellants was searched and certain documents were recovered. The statement of the Director namely, Shri Mukesh Gopal Dass Dattani was recorded. On 19th December 1981 a show cause notice was issued proposing to determine the assessable value at Rs. 22/- per kg. CIF Bombay, as against the invoice/declared value of Rs. 13,05 per kg. CIF Bombay. On receipt of the reply the original authority confirmed the demand, the appeal to the Collector was rejected. Hence the appeal before us.3. The Assistant Collector and the Collector while determining the assessable value of the imported goods at Rs. 22/- per kg. re...
Hindustan Photo Films Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC116
1. All these appeals are by M/s Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Company Limited. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is common they were heard together.2. The dispute is with reference to the liability for payment of additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the C.T.A on the jumbo films imported by the appellants for being converted into cinematographic positive films of various sizes for supply to their customers. The case for the Department is that these goods fell under Item 68 GET for purpose of additional duty of customs while the case for the appellants is that the proper classification would be under Item 37-1 CET. In respect of the majority of imports in issue the appellants had paid duty under Item 68 CET as demanded and had later preferred refund claims on the basis that proper classification would be under Item 37-1 CET. In respect of other imports the goods had been cleared under bond and later removed from the bonded warehouse after payment of additional d...
Siporex India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT587TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture building materials, viz. slabs, lintels and blocks classifiable under Tariff Item 68 at the relevant time.During the course of manufacture of these products some waste arises either because the end product does not conform to the required standards or there is some defect. Some waste arises in handling during the course of manufacture. The appellants categorise such waste in four categories viz. siporex waste, siporex powder, siporex aggregate and siporex broken. They filed a classification list (allegedly on the direction of the Superintendent of Central Excise on 1-8-1979) for these four items claiming Nil rate of duty on the ground that these were waste material not covered by the Central Excise Tariff. The Central Excise authorities classified these goods under Tariff Item 68.The appellants appealed to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who upheld the classification in respect of siporex waste, siporex broken and siporex aggregate but held that...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »