Delhi Court September 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.
Omex (India) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)(51)ELT573TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 135/89-Addl. Collr (A) dated 28-12-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Customs House, Calcutta.2. The appellants M/s. Omex (India), Ghaziabad, imported one consignment of 192 cases of BMZ Brand ball bearings of Bulgarian origin and sought their clearance against I.T.C. licence in the name of M/s.Rastriya Casting Works, Rajasthan, with a letter of authority executed in their favour by the licensee. The value of the goods was declared at Rs. 1,87,634.94 Paise C.I.F and these goods were assessed in the Customs House on 25-10-1988 and duty amounting to Rs. 12,91,935/- was also realised from the appellants. Subsequently, an investigation was started by the D.R.I. Zonal Unit suspecting the declared weight of bearing No. 62067 and also the origin of all the bearings. During examination it was found that some of the ball bearings had not been correctly declared and hence they were not entitled to th...
Mody Brothers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT633TriDel
1. M/s Mody Brothers, 403, Raheja Chambers, Nariman Point, Bombay - 400021, have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. A notice of hearing dated 16th August, 1990 was sent per registered A.D. post and the appellants vide their telegram received in the Registry on 10th September, 1990 have intimated that the matter may be decided on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo.3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s. S.B. Metal Co., 6/42, Dariya Mahal No.3, 80, Napean Sea Road, Bombay - 400 006 had imported 69 drums of brass dross vide bill of entry No.1518/51. The importers had declared the imported goods as brass dross weighing 17.024 metric tonnes nett from USA and claimed its clearance under OGL Appendix 10, Part III, Sr. No. 2 of AM 1984 Policy and the suppliers were M/s.Amalgamated Iron & Metal Inc., New York and the unit price declared in the invoice No.119/15-8-83 was US cents 58 per Lb CIF Bombay. Pursuant to certai...
Sree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC607Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufacture Asbestos Cement Products. They paid duty on these products without excluding the expenses incurred on freight.On realising the mistake, they preferred 12 refund claims totalling to Rs. 1,72,27,253.00. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund application. The Collector allowed the appeal filed by the appellants and remanded the same to the Assistant Collector for quantification of the actual freight incurred by the appellants and also for verification of the refund claims. Accordingly, the Assistant Collector, verified the actual freight and the refund claims and sanctioned a refund of Rs. 49,57,243.57 out of the total amount of Rs. 1,72,27,253.00 by his order dated 11-5-1987.2. Against the refund sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, the Collector, in exercise of the powers, conferred under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, directed the Assistant Collector to file an appeal to the Collector alleging, inter alia, that "against...
General Industrial Controls (P) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT449TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of an order-in-original No. 08/CEX/1989 dated 21st June, 1989 of the Collector.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture and sale of 'Timers' and Time Switches' since 1973. They entered into a distributorship agreement on 18th June, 74 with M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited (hereinafter called as buyer) under which the entire production of 'Timers and Time Switches' were to be sold to the buyer who in turn sell the same in the market. Under the agreement it is provided that the buyer would be given 30% discount on the list selling price. Prior to Dec., 1982 the appellants were exempt from licensing control.Therefore, while applying for licence they filed the agreement dated 24th July, 1980 on 10th November, 1982. They were granted L-4 licence.The appellants also applied claiming benefit of Notification No. 120/75 which was granted on 23rd December, 1982. Again the appellants filed copies of agreement dated 24th July, 1980 and 1st July, 1985 on 23rd July...
Paramount Sinters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC129Tri(Delhi)
1. All the above appeals pertain to-M/s. Paramount Sinters Private Limited, Nagpur. They are all clubbed together for the purpose of hearing and disposal as the question for determination in all the appeals is identical. The Cross appeal of the Revenue is also heard and disposed of by this order.2. Appeal No. 1051 and 1052/86-C arise from a common appeal disposed of by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay against the two orders-in-original dated 6-2-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chanderpur confirming the demands made in the two show cause notices dated 29-9-1984 and 28-4-1985 respectively for the period from 1-11-1983 to 31-3-1984 and 1-4-1984 to 31-8-1984.3. The appellants are alleged to have removed from their factory a quantity of 3937.270 M.T. of Manganese Ore Sinters valued at Rs. 41,53,728.40 P. without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 4,15,372.84 P.for the period 7-4-1984 to 31-8-1984 and a quantity of 5251.030 M.T. of manganese ore sinters valued...
Amrutanjan Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC229
1. In these two appeals common issues are involved, hence they have been taken together for disposal.2. M/s. Amrutanjan Limited have sought far setting aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) Madras in order-in-appeal No. 37/88(M) dated 29-02-1988 by which the Collector (Appeals) for the reasons given by him in the other order-in-appeal No. 56/87(H) Dated 27-02-1987 confirmed the order-in-original dated 17-09-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras. M/s. Amrutanjan Limited, the appellants, are manufacturer of a patented pain balm known as "Amrutanjan Pain Balm Ayurvedic" falling under Tariff Item 14-E of the First-Schedule of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, till 01-03-1986 and under the C.E. Heading 3003.30 after the introduction of the C.E.T.Act, 1985. They filed a classification list dated 05-03-1986 seeking classification under sub-heading 3003.30 with nil rate of duty. The same was approved provisionally on 26-05-1986 under Rule 9B pending further en...
L.R. Goyal and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: 1991(20)DRJ131
J.P. Sharma, J. (1) The applicants, seven in number, are departmental promotes who are/were working as Senior Technical Officers/Technical Officers with the National Airport Authority and originally belonged to Communication Directorate under Director General Civil Aviation. They have filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 against Union of India, Director General. Civil Aviation (in short, D.G.C.A.). Chairman, National Airport Authority (in short, N.A A.) and. 30 private respondents working as Senior Techtlical.Officers under National Airport Authority, New Delhi. The grievance of .the applicants is regarding fixation of their seniority vis-a-vis direct recruit Technical Officers as shown in seniority lists issued by respondent No. 2 as on 1-10-83 (Annexure A-1),as on 1-12-1986 (Annexure (A-2) amd as on 1-7-1987 (AnnexureA-3). They have prayed for the following reliefs: (I)To quash the seniority lists issued vide Annexure A-1,A-2 and a-3 ibid. ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Super Packers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT347TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of an order-in-appeal No. C3/1401/1982 dated 31-8-1982.2. The respondents imported a consignment of automatic plate processors comprising of Exposure Unit, wash out unit and Oven Wash out Unit and Photopolymer plates. The Assistant Collector classified the articles imported under Heading 90.10 C.T.A. and 37.01/08 (1) respectively. The respondents filed an appeal to the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal classifying the items under T.I. 84.34 C.T.A. 1968.3. The Collector, by his order of February, 1983, filed an appeal against the order of the Collector classifying the photopolymer plates under Heading 84.34. In his appeal, he stated that the decision of the Appellate Collector of Customs in regard to the first item for re-assessment under Heading 84.34 C.T.A. (with additional duty under Item 68 C.E.T.), is acceptable. The same is being implemented.4. The main ground in the appeal is that Chapter 37 covers photographic and the cine...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Spinning and Weaving
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC177
1.1 The appellants were served with a show cause notice dated 17-2-1981 for the period October 1978 to April 1980 as to why the differential duty on the clearances of yarn effected during the said period be not recovered from them since they had not included the duty under Additional Duties of Excise (Textile & Textile Articles) Act, 1978 for the purpose of calculation of interest on yarn duty under Rule 49A. The original authority confirmed the duty and held that since there was a contravention of Rule 49A, demand of 5 years period under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was applicable. 1.2 On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, however, upheld the contention of the respondents herein that the demand was hit by normal time limit of six months under Section 11A since the R.T. 12 returns for the relevant period have been finally assessed without any objection/query and there was no allegation in the show cause notice regarding s...
Bhartiya Textiles Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC32
1. We heard Shri Haskar, learned advocate for the Appellants and Shri Nair, learned JDR for the respondent on the miscellaneous application and also on the main appeal.2. In the miscellaneous application, the applicants have sought to raise two additional grounds in the Appeal Memorandum. In nutshell the grounds arc that the process of calendering of the bleached fabric with the help of plain rollers does not bring into existence a commodity commercially different from the uncalendered fabric and the process of the said calendering does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Consequently, no duty liability can be attached to the calendered fabric. In the interest of proper appreciation of the issue in dispute, after hearing both sides, we allowed the Miscellaneous Application.3. By the impugned order, the Collector held that the appellants had been engaged in the process of calendering grey cotton fabrics and hand-bleached cotton cloth ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »