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.
Preetliya Jewellers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT170TriDel
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 CA-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 allowed the re-e...
Electric Controls and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: (1991)(34)LC223Tri(Delhi)
1. Being dissatisfied with the rejection of the refund claim by the authorities below the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that during the period from 1.4.1988 to 4.7.1988 the appellants cleared the goods on payment of excise duty at the appropriate rate, but subsequently filed refund claim for Rs. 3,84,197.28 on the ground that they were entitled to avail concessional rates of duty under Notification No. 175/86. The same was rejected by Assistant Collector observing that the appellants were availing SSI exemption benefits during the preceding Financial year 1987-88, but they started clearances on full rate of duty for reasons unknown. The Assistant Collector has observed that the appellants had paid the duty as per their classification lists and the amount of duty has also been collected from the buyers and they were not entitled for refund as this would amount to undue enrichment.Against that order of the Assistant Collector the ap...
Sha Poosaji Mangilal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC121Tri(Delhi)
1. In his letter dated 28-4-1990 ad-dressed to the Assistant Registrar, Special Bench 'A' of this Tribunal, Shri P. Champalal, Proprietor of Sha Poosaji Mangilal requested to decide the matter on merits. We have, therefore, gone through the records of the case and have heard Shri S.P. Singh, learned SDR for the respondents.2. The vessel carrying the goods imported by the appellants arrived on 28-2-1982, on which date the rate of basic customs duly was 40% ad valorem. Entry inward to the vessel was granted by the Customs authorities on 2-3-1982 when the rate of duty was 60% ad valorem. The appellants claimed assessment at the lower rate of duty on the ground that the duty prevailing on the date of arrival of the vessel was applicable. This contention was not accepted by the lower authorities and hence the present appeal before us.3. The learned SDR has argued that the issue is squarely covered by the judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts. He has cited Supreme Court judgment report...
Raghunand Chemicals Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT437TriDel
1.1 The appellant company herein were manufacturing goods falling under T.I. 68 prior to and also after 18-6-1977. Prior to 18-6-1977, the company was exempted from payment of duty as it was having less than 50 workers. Under Notification 176/77 dated 18-6-1977 the basis of exemption underwent a change. The new basis was (i) if the value of clearance of goods effected by the manufacturer in the preceding year had not exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs and (ii) the sum total of the value of capital investment made from time to time on plant and machinery in the industrial unit did not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs. 1.2 Prior to April 1979, the appellant company did not take out Central Excise licence as their value of clearance during financial year 1977-78 was less than 80% of the exemption limit, which was a fact and as per their claim the value of plant and machinery installed was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. 1.3 It appears from the record in response to a letter dated 19th April, 1978 from the Supdt. of Centr...
Universal Conveyor Beltings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)(35)LC220Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue arising for determination in the present appeal is whether scrap edge cuttings of transmission and conveyor beltings were classifiable under Item No. 16A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, as it stood at the material lime or under Item 68 or whether at all the goods were excisable. The Asstt. Collector look the view that the goods were classifiable under Item 68 rejecting the appellants' claim for Item No. 16A(2) of the Schedule. In appeal this order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The present appeal is against this order.2. We have heard Shri Satya Sheel, Advocate for the appellants and Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, D.R. for the respondent-Collector. Shri Satya Sheel has relied on the decision of the Central Board of Excise & Customs in the case of Wirecond Delhi Pvt. Ltd. 1980 Cen-Cus 681D holding that scrap cannot be treated as 'goods' for the purpose of excise levy. He has also relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Modi Rubber Ltd. v. U.O.I. 1987 (1...
Satinder Kumar JaIn (Huf) Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD27a(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals by the assessee arising out of his assessments to wealth-tax for the asst. years 1979-80 and 1980-81 and the grounds that are identical in both the years are as under : 1. That the CWT(A) has erred in upholding the assessed value of residential properety at F- 1/3 Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi at Rs. 2,89,112 after wrongly taking the Act of self-occupied portion at the rent received for the let out portion as against the ALV on the basis of rateable value assessed by the Municipal Corporation or the standard rent since rent capitalisation method has been adopted by the IAC(A). 2. That the CWT(A) has erred in upholding disallowance of liabilities and loans of the assessee at Rs. 66,321 and in view of the fact that all loans and liabilities are old one's and have been utilised in assets taxable to wealth-tax a position accepted by the department in the past, the CWT(A) has wrongly upheld this disallowance which kindly be deleted. 1. That the CWT(A) has erred in u...
Essel Packaging Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT430TriDel
1. These appeals relate to the classification of 3-ply, 5-ply and 7-ply laminated film and plastic multilaminated collapsible tubes. All 3 appeals involve common issues and are hence disposed of by this common order.2. E/A 265/85-C : This appeal relates to the classification and rate of duty applicable to 3-ply laminated film, 5-ply laminated film, 7-ply laminated film and plastic collapsible multi-laminated tubes obtained from 7-ply laminated film. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed classification list 22/84 w.e.f. 2-8-1984 for the classification of the above mentioned products. A show cause notice was served upon them, (1) alleging that 7-ply laminated film and collapsible tubes being composite articles are not eligible for exemption under Notification 182/82, CE dated 11-5-1982.(2) seeking to classify 5-ply laminated films under T.I. 27 (7). No question was raised regarding classification of 3-ply laminates. The appellants replied that 5-ply and 7-ply laminated fil...
Bansal Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT161; 1990(19)DRJ106
S.N. Sapra, J. (1) By this order, I propose to dispose off an application, filed under Order 39 Rules I and 2, read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, whereby petitioner has sought directions to respondents, to restore electric supply to the premiles, G-6, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi. (2) In brief, the facts leading to the institution of the present proceedings, are as under :- (3) Petitioner has filed a petition, under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, Arbitration 1940, for filing of the agreement in Court, and reference of disputes to the arbitrator. (4) Petitioner has been carrying on the business of production of Slab casting at premises No. G-6, Udyog Nagar, Delhi. Respondent no. 2 has given to petitioner, electricity connection of 2820 KWs. (5) During the course of business, the employees of respondents have been conducting various inspections, fr(r)m time to time and, found the working of the petitioner's factory in order in all respects. Respondents are also maintaining the ...
Baksha Ram Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC508Tri(Delhi)
1. Facts, relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal, are that Police intercepted one Jonga Jeep bearing No. RSN 8385. The occupants managed to escape and on search the jeep was found loaded with bales and gunny bags containing some contraband goods. On inquiry, the jeep was found to be belonging to the appellant. His statement was recorded under provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein he said that he has sold this jeep to one Shri Jeevan Lal and he produced a photostat copy of the Affidavit in support of his contention. He also gave address where Shri Jeevan Lal was working. Summons were sent at the said address, but they were returned with the remarks that 'nobody with such name was working there'. So, as stated in the impugned order para 2, contention of Shri Baksha Ram that he had sold the vehicle, could not be verified or established. Show cause notices were issued to the appellant and also to Shri Jeevan Lal and on adjudication, goods and the vehicle wer...
Vadarbha Veneer Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC551Tri(Delhi)
1. Question involved in these appeals is a common one, therefore, a common order is being passed.2. Question is whether 'block-board' manufactured by the appellants falls under Tariff Heading 4410.90 or 4408.90 CET. The assessees/appellants submit that sub-heading 4410.90 is appropriate, while the department has classified under the Heading 4-408.90. The Tribunal in its order No. 427 to 431/1989-D dated 18-10-89 in the case of Woodcraft Products Ltd. has upheld the contention of the manufacturers/appellants that it falls under Tariff sub-heading 4410.90 CET. Learned advocate for the appellants herein has strongly relied on the said order of the Tribunal.3. I have some reservations about the classification of the product under subheading 4410.90 for the following brief reasons :- (i) the Central Excise Tariff is closely modelled on HSN and particularly the Chapter 44, preference should be given to the Explanatory Notes to HSN which carry a high persuasive value in such a circumstance, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »