Delhi Court June 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.
income-tax Officer Vs. Jyoti Trading Corpn.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: [1990]34ITD414(Delhi)
ORDERPer V. P. Elhence, Judicial Member - 1 to 14 [These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues.]ITA No. 5677/Del/1988 (Appeal filed by the assessed)15. The first ground relates to the depreciation claimed by the assessed in the sum of the ship M. V. Jal Azad. The basis facts in regard to the same are was follows. This ship wes originally owned by Scindia Steam Navigation Co. who sold it to M/s. Jaldoot Shipping Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 74 lakhs. The certificate dated 18-10-1980 of the Mercantile Marine Department, Bombay (Ministry of Transport & Shipping) is to the effect that M/s. Jaldoot Shipping Pvt. Ltd. were the registered owners of M. V. Hal Azad. The Shipping, Carving and Marking Note issued by the Registrar of Indian Ships on 2-12-1980, showed that the name of the ship had changed to 'Jyoti Vinod. M/s. Jaldoot Shipping Pvt. Ltd. passed a Resolution dated 5-2-1981 that this ship be sold to the assessed for Rs. 55.5 lakhs against Rs. 25.5 lakhs down payment and bal...
Kanpur Bottling Company Private Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC180
1. We have heard Shri A.K. Jain for the appellants and Shri Jai Narayanan Nair for the respondent. Shri Jain has argued that the present appeal relates to the refund claim of the appellants for the period from 1.4.76 to 12.8.76. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, in his order-in-original No. V(18)32-Ref/80/5332 dated 7.8.80, rejected the claim for refund pertaining to this period on ground of time-bar as the refund claim was submitted on 23.6.80. In this connection, the penultimate paragraph of the Assistant Collector's order has been read out by the learned advocate. In the said para the Assistant Collector has observed that the refund claim should have been lodged on or before 31.3.1977. The learned advocate further argued that the Assistant Collector passed his order without giving any personal hearing and without issuing any show cause notice. As a result, the appellants did not have the opportunity to examine their case and establish that the refund claim was not time-bar...
Collector of Customs Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC273
1. The appellants have sought for setting aside the Order-in-Appeal No.CAL. CUS 1709/89 dated 16-10-1989 passed by Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) Calcutta.2. The respondent submitted a bill of entry that among other things contained furnace oil of 1449.36 Kilo litre, which was found on board a vessel during her reversion from foreign run to coastal run. Furnace oil was assessed to duty under Tariff Heading 2710.50 @ Rs 127.10 Per Kilo Litre. The respondent disputed the assessment of rate of duty of furnace oil. According to them, the rate of duty should be at rupees 5.20 P per Kilo litre as per Notification No. 157/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 as amended by Notification No. 115/79-Cus., dated 31-5-1979 read with amendment Notification No. 295/87-Cus., dated 13-8-1987. The appellants filed a refund claim for Rs. 1,76,677.00 as excess paid duty by them. The refund claim received was rejected on the ground that the amendment Notification No. 295/87-Cus., dated 13-8-1987 c...
Associated Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC301Tri(Delhi)
1. The Misc. application is for seeking to amplify and to amend certain grounds of appeal, and on a consideration of the proposed amplification and amendment, and on hearing both the parties in the matter, the Misc.application was allowed.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-9-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi by which he demanded duty of Rs. 10,93,638.60 in respect of steel tabular poles/electric poles for the period 1-4-1985 to 30-9-1985. The appellants herein manufacture steel tabular poles falling under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. The goods were considered to be falling under Item 26AA(iv) of Central Excise Tariff and are exempted from duty under Notification 69/73 till 1982 when doubt was expressed about the classification of the item and the department initiated adjudication proceedings by issue of show cause notice dated 18-12-1982 seeking to classify the item under Tariff Item 68 and raising a demand for short levy for the period ...
Bihar Caustic and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC250
1. The captioned appeals have been filed against the orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Calcutta.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufacture caustic soda and obtain chlorine as a by-product. A part of the chlorine, the appellants marketed and that the balance they utilised for the manufacture of hydrochloric acid. The appellants sold part of hydrochloric acid and the balance of it they destroyed, as, according to them, they had no market for the same. The destruction carried out by the appellants was not done after obtaining the permission of proper officer in terms of Rule 49(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.As it is the chlorine gas, used for the manufacture of hydrochloric acid cleared on payment of duty was exempt under Notification No.145/71. The authorities have demanded duty in respect of chlorine utilised for the manufacture of hydrochloric acid destroyed by them and also on the acid destroyed.3. Learned Consultant for the appe...
Punjab Recorders Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC642Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pump Refuelling' which are used for dispensing liquid fuels contained in barrels into fuel tanks of vehicles. The pump consists of a high speed D.C. motor operated by a 24 Volts DC Battery. The appellants cleared pumps valued Rs. 3,67,500/-, Rs. 17,46,000/- and Rs. 103,000/- respectively during the period 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 up to 3.11.1983. The appellants were served with a show cause notice by the Assistant Collector asking them to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 53,392.50 should not be recovered from them on the clearances of Power Driven Pumps during the year 1982-83 and 1983-84 (up to 3.11.1983) in excess of the limit of Rs. 7.5 lakhs for duty free clearances during any financial year under Notification No. 80/80-CE dated 16.9.1980. In their reply to the show cause notice the appellants denied that pumps refuelling manufactured by them were assessable under Tariff Item 30-A as power driven pumps. They contend...
Kanpur Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC332Tri(Delhi)
1. We have heard Shri A.K. Jain for the appellants and Shri Jai Narayanan Nair for the respondent. Shri Jain has argued that the present appeal relates to the refund claim of the appellants for the period from 1-4-1976 to 12-8-1976. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, in his order-in-original No. V(18)32-Ref/80/5332 dated 7-8-1980, rejected the claim for refund pertaining to this period on ground of time-bar as the refund claim was submitted on 23-6-1980. In this connection, the penultimate paragraph of the Assistant Collector's order has been read out by the learned advocate. In the said para the Assistant Collector has observed that the refund claim should have been lodged on or before 31-3-1977. The learned advocate further argued that the Assistant Collector passed his order without giving any personal hearing and without issuing any show cause notice. As a result, the appellants did not have the opportunity to examine their case and establish that the refund claim was not ...
S.T.P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC157
1. By the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the Asst.Collector's Order No. l-Val/85 dated 2-5-1985 on the classification under the First Schedule ('CET', for short) to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, of several products manufactured by the appellants.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants manufacture several coal tar products. They filed a classification list No. 26/83 effective from 1-3-1983. 23 products were listed therein, grouped under 5 heads - __________________________________________________________________________________________ Heading Assessee's claim __________________________________________________________________________________________ (a) Partially distilled tars Item 11(5), CET with duty exemption under (b) Blends of pitch with creosote oil Item 11(5), CET with benefit of the above or other Coal Tar Distillation notifications. products. (c) Diesel Oil not elsewhere Item 9, CET with benefit of Notification specified 1...
Satya Vijay Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: (1991)(51)ELT457TriDel
1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. S33-10/89-A. GR.2 dated 20-7-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Custom House, Calcutta.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants imported two consignments of "High Impact Polystyrene" by S.S. Tiger Bay at Calcutta port and filed two bills of entry No. 819 and 820 dated 15-9-1988. The goods were declared as "Polystyrene HI-425" and the value was declared on the basis of a price of U.S. $ 1485 per M.T. cif.The appellants claimed classification of the goods under Heading No.3903.19 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Schedule') and the benefit of Customs Notification No. 342/76 dated 2-8-1976. The Customs authorities observed that identical goods had been imported through Bombay port during the relevant period at substantially higher prices of U.S. $ 1880 to 1990 per M.T. cif. The goods, on test, were found to be a copolymer of styrene containing...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Paushak Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)(31)LC647Tri(Delhi)
1. In those two COD applications, Revenue sought for condonation of delay in filing two supplementary appeals as numbered above.2. Appeal No. 938/88C had come up for final hearing on 9.2.1990 on which date it was pointed out to the JDR that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay in his common order had disposed of 3 orders in original which had been passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. On that day, the JDR confined his arguments to only one appeal and same was reserved for orders. Now the Revenue has come up with two supplementary appeals with this application for condonation of delay. They have submitted in these two CODs that three orders referred to in the said order in appeal were involving same issue and concerning the same party and only one appeal was preferred on 13.3.1986 against the said order in appeal, which was numbered as 938/86-C. They have submitted that the delay is caused due to prevailing established practice. At no stage and no poi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »