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.
Southern Petrochemical Inds. Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC204
1. The appellants have sought for an order on merits on the basis of the grounds of appeal annexed to form CA-3. The appeal arose from the order in appeal dated 5-8-1988 in C3-492/88 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras who has upheld the order in original dated 5-3-1988 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refunds).2. The appellant imported a consignment of Heat Exchanger tubes from M/S Toyo Engineering Corporation, Tokyo, Japan under BE 1429/20-12-1985 by vessel JURINA. The supplier along with the consignment sent a package of anti-corrosive coating compound free of charge. The appellants have contended that this was supplied to touch up the tubes at the time of assemblying. As the invoice was separately raised a separate BED 837/12-12-1985 was filed. The goods though declared as of no commercial value was classified under Heading 32.04/12(i) and assessed to duty at 150% + 40% (20% + 5% of 20%). The appellants have submitted that consignment was sent free of ...
inarco Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC195
1. The appellant M/s. Inarco Ltd., Bombay has sought for setting aside the impugned order by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay in Order-in-Appeal No. 2898/88 BCH by which he confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Department, New Custom House, Bombay who had rejected lour refund applications of the Appellants.2. The question that arises for consideration is the correct classification of two imported products namely CHEMIGUM N-328-B and CHEMIGUM N-628-B for assessment under Chapter 40 of C.T.A as sought by appellant or Chapter 39 of C.T.A as sought by Revenue.3. The Appellants imported the goods which have been declared in the relevant B/E Cash No. 2388 dated 24-6-1986 and Cash No. 1671 dated 20-10-1986 "Synthetic Rubber Chemigum N 328 B," in B/E Cash No. 2389 dated 24-6-1986 as "Synthetic Rubber-Chemigum N 628 B" and in B/E Cash No. 748 dated 5-6-1986 as "Synthetic Rubber Krynac-110". The Appellants claimed the re-assessment of the goods under Heading 40...
Collector of Customs Vs. Pushpa Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT601TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed by the department with reference to the order of the learned Collector of Customs, Kanpur. After preliminary submissions the learned SDR stated that he would not press the stay if the case is taken up today.2. In the above circumstances the stay application is dismissed as not pressed and the main case is taken up for hearing with the consent of both the sides.3. The learned SDR stated that the Kanpur Customs Officers recovered electronic goods of foreign origin from the business premises of the appellant and seized them as the respondent could not produce evidence of legal importation and acquisition, etc.4. A show cause notice was issued on 9-7-1987. Attempts were made to serve the show cause notice personally but the respondent refused to receive the same. Hence the show cause notice was pasted at the door of a shop in the presence of two independent witnesses on 11-7-1987.5. A copy of the notice was also pasted on the notice board of the Collect...
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD31(Delhi)
Grossing-up of income made in multiple stages and department and ONGC agreed one stage grossing up of income, therefore, assessing officer's order taking one stage grossing up of income was not erroneous and prejudicial.The only point raised by the Commissioner in the notice issued to the assessee under section 263 was that the surtax leviable on the foreign company was also payable by the ONGC and this tax perquisite was also to be added in the total income. There was no assertion in that notice that there should have been multiple grossing and event the perqusite value of income-tax was not correctly added. Further, even otherwise such a point was not available to the Commissioner because vide agreement dated 24-12-1981 the then Commissioner and the ONGC had specifically agreed that one stage grossing up is being accepted by the department and the ONGC. It was on the basis of this agreement that the assessing officer added the perquisite value of income-tax on single stage grossing ...
Jhalani Tools (i.) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD328(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1978-79 arises out of the order) dated 27-3-1987 passed by the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi and raises an interesting isSue.2. The assessee was assessed to tax and a net demand of Rs. 42,58,386 was made Under Section 156 against it. The assessee did not pay the same and appealed to the CIT(A) who allowed some relief. The demand as it stood as a consequence of the order of the CIT(A) was paid by the assessee along with interest Under Section 220(2) with reference to the reduced demand. The revenue appealed to the Tribunal and by virtue of the Tribunal's order some relief granted by the CIT(A) was withdrawn thereby enhancing the demand by Rs. 95,000. The Assessing Officer (A.O.for short) levied interest Under Section 220(2) on this sum of Rs. 95,000 for the period from 16-10-1982 to 30-11-1985 at Rs. 47,025. The question is whether this amount of interest has been properly charged.3. Shri G.C. Sharma, the learned counsel for the assessee gav...
Jardine Henderson Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT141TriDel
1. By a notice dated 7-6-1979, . the appellants herein who are manufacturers of laminated jute bags, were called upon to show cause why the said goods should not be classified under Tariff Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, why Central Excise duty should not be demanded in respect of goods cleared from May 1975 without payment of duty and why a penalty should not be imposed upon them for contravention of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector, by order dated 28-1-1980 held that the appellants were liable to pay duty on the goods under Item 68, CET, for the period from 1-3-1975 to 5-6-1979. In appeal, the Appellate Collector upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. It is this order that is being challenged in the present appeal.2. We have heard Shri N. Mukherjee, the learned advocate for the appellants and Shri J. Narayanan Nair, JDR for the respondents. (i) laminated jute bags are jute products falling under Tariff Item 22A, CET ("J...
Fgp Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC266Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants imported "Resorite Crudo Sodium Borate Concentrate".The goods were classified under Heading 28.01/ 58(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as chemical. The appellants claimed reassessment under Heading 25.01/32(1) of the Customs Tariff Act l975 read with Notification No. 147/76-Cus., dated 2.8.1976. This claim was turned down by the lower authorities.2. The learned advocate has argued that the appellants' case is covered by the Tribunal's Order No. 533/89-C dated 4.9.1989 in their favour. In the said case, the appellants imported Crude Sodium Borate Concentrate.The appellants therein contended that the imported goods were Kernite whose brand name was Resorite, It was held by the Tribunal in the said case that the goods imported were Kernite (Resorite). Under Notification No. 147/76-Cus., dated 2.8.1976, Kernite including its concentrates and colemanite including crude calcium borate falling under Chapter 25 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 were exempted from the basic c...
Telco Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC266
1. The subject misc. application seeks to amend the memorandum of appeal by incorporating some of the new grounds therein.2. Ground No. L) in short indicates that both Chapter 38 and Chapter 73 have been notified as input and output under Notification No.177/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 issued under Rule 57A covered by MODVAT Scheme. The resin coated sand on which duty has been demanded in the impugned order has been classified under Heading 3801.90 and the castings in which such resin coated sand is used is classified under Heading 73.07. During the period prior to 1-9-1986 castings were cleared after availing exemption under Notification 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983 since no credit of the duty on the inputs thereof had been availed. The appellants/applicants now undertake to pay duty payable on the resin coated sand as demanded in the impugned order and it could be taken as MODVAT credit towards payment of duty on castings. The appellants, it is also submitted may be permitted to take the...
Fgp Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT640TriDel
1. The appellants imported "Rasorite Crude Sodium Borate Concentrate".The goods were classified under Heading 28.01/58(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as chemical. The appellants claimed re-assessment under Heading 25.01/32(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Notification No. 147/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. This claim was turned down by the lower authorities.2. The learned advocate has argued that the appellants' case is covered by the Tribunal's Order No. 533/89-C dated 4-9-1989 in their favour. In the said case, the appellants imported Crude Sodium Borate Concentrate.The appellants therein contended that the imported goods were Kernite whose brand name was Rasorite. It was held by the Tribunal in the said case that the goods imported were Kernite (Rasorite). Under Notification No. 147/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, Kernite including its concentrates and colemanite including crude calcium bbrate falling under Chapter 25 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 were exempted from the basic ...
Peetliya Jewellers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-1990
Reported in: (1991)(35)LC218Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur.2. The learned Counsel stated that briefly the facts are that the appellants had exported certain cut and polished stones on approval basis. The importer returned certain lots and sent information about the items being returned. The appellants filed the Bill of Entry claiming re-import accordingly under Section 20 of Customs Act, 1962.3. It was further alleged by the department that on examination the identity of the re-imported goods was not established with reference to the goods claimed to have been exported in the relevant export certificate.4. It was their contention that the Bill of Entry was filed on the basis of the information supplied by the exporter but when it was found that the goods in some lots were not identifiable he had made a request that the same may be returned back to the exporter. The department accepted the request of the appellants to the extent that the Collector all...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »