Delhi Court June 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 1 of about 33 results (0.019 seconds)A.P. Scooters Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC243Tri(Delhi)
1. The dispute relates to the assessable value of scooters sold through depots.2. The appellants manufacture scooters and filed a price list in Part I claiming assessable value of Rs. 7,400 /- per scooter. Alongwith the price list, they also informed the market pattern according to which the scooters are despatched directly from the factory to all the dealers in the State of Andhra Pradesh for which invoices are raised at the factory gate. In respect of other States, the scooters are first transferred on stock transfer basis to the depots situated in those States. The Regional depot, supply/despatch scooters on receipt of sale proceeds for which invoices are raised. The appellants claimed that since the normal price is ascertainable at the time and place of removal, it should be the basis for the assessable value in respect of depot sales. The price list was approved in so far as the sales at the factory gate in the State of Andhra Pradesh. As regards the sales from Depots, a show cau...
Tag this Judgment!Luxor Pen Company Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC528Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against Order-in-Original No. S/10-268/87-Gr. 3 dated 8-1-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The appellants imported a consignment of 33 cartons containing Nylon Yarn (Industrial Yarn) 2/1000 Danier under Bill of Entry No. 8706 dated 18-12-1987. They claimed clearance of the goods under Open General Licence (OGL) vide Appendix 6, List 8, Part I, Item No.173. The goods had been shipped on 20-10-1987 but contract for import has been registered with the Textile Commissioner vide Registration No.47/Others/M/87-88 dated 12-11-1987. Clearance of the said goods against OGL was not accepted by the Department on the ground that the contract was not registered with the Textile Commissioner at the time of shipment of the goods. It was held that the import is unauthorised under the provisions of para 26 of Import & Export Policy read with para 11 of Appendix 6 to Import & Export Policy. The Collector who adjudicated the proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Sons Vs. Additional Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC531Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an application for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty. The appellants imported No. 5 Zippers and the Side-Tape. The Asstt.Collector raised a dispute as to the valuation of Zipper No. 5 and also disputed the licences which were submitted by the appellants for the release of the goods. The appellants filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court No. 1297 of 1991.2. The Bombay High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition passed the following order: "Respondents No. 1 to 3 do immediately permit the petitioner to put the "Side Tape for Metal Zippers" covered under Bill of Entry bearing No. 6541 dtd. 17-1-1991 being Exhibit 'A' to the Petition in a Bonded warehouse under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962".3. The Addl. Collector in pursuance of the order of the High Court on the Bill of Entry made the following endorsement while permitting the appellants to warehouse the goods under Section 49. Section 49 may be allowed for Item No. 2 after payment of duty only.4. The main ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. CochIn Port Trust
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT321TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order No. 13/84 dated 9-4-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The facts of the case are that the respondents have a workshop in which they were manufacturing goods falling under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The workshop employing about 200 workers was registered under the Factories Act. The items manufactured in the workshop were used for the repair of the vessels and tugs berthed in the dry-dock situated adjacent to the workshop. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his order dated 5-12-1983 held the respondents were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 118/75 since the excisable goods manufactured by them were being used in the repair of vessels brought to the dry docks which was not in the factory or workshop where they were manufactured. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector the respondents filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), who while ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Vegetable Products Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC430Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals involving a common issue and thus, are being disposed of by this common order.2. The dispute relates to the includibility of the cost of 'Metal tin containers' in the assessable value of the 'Vanaspati'.3. The appellants manufacture Vanaspati. At the time of selling their Vanaspati, the appellants in their invoices separately indicated the price of the 'Metal tin containers'. An express condition is also incorporated in the invoices that the 'Metal tin containers' are returnable and durable and that on return of the 'Metal tin container', the appellants would return to the buyer amounts collected on account of metal tin. Prior to May 1980, they have included the value of metal tins/containers in the assessable value of Vanaspati. However, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International [1983 (14) ELT 1896 (SC)], they have stopped paying excise duty on metal containers. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 5-11-1980 proposing to rec...
Tag this Judgment!Mirah Decor Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT312TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20-12-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi. The facts, in brief, are as follows : 2. The appellants filed their Bill of Entry for warehousing dated 1-8-1987 at the Inland Container Depot (ICD), New Delhi for the clearance of a consignment described as decorative paper for laminates.An import licence dated 9-10-1986, being REP Licence issued under Appendix 17 of the Import Policy 1985-88 against product credit C. 11.1 for decorative paper for laminates was filed for the clearance of the goods. The Bill of Entry was marked to the Superintendent, CFS for examination of the goods on 1-8-1987 with the direction to send sealed samples to the Assessing Officer and was, in its turn, marked to the Inspector by the Superintendent on 10-8-1987 and the goods were examined on 19-8-1987 and samples were drawn by the Inspector in the presence of the Customs House Agents (CHA) and the appellants, who were M/s. Om Internationa...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Cable Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT403TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-original No. 19/ADC/CE/88 dated 15-12-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables.The factory of the appellants was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 11-9-1987 and among others discrepancies found that a quantity of 6726 mtrs. of wires and cables, valued at Rs. 88,146.56 was not accounted for in the relevant RG-1 Register. The Additional Collector who adjudicated the proceedings after considering the facts, circumstances and submissions made by the parties dropped other charges except this charge. Accordingly, he held that 6726 mtrs. of fully finished insulated aluminium and copper cables valued at Rs. 88,146.56 are liable for confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the goods were not available for confiscation having been released to the party provisionally, he appropriated Rs. 15,000/- f...
Tag this Judgment!S.D. Fine Chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC370Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal directed against the order dated 4-3-1987 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay by which the Collector had allowed review application made by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II before him under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excises & Salt Act and had set aside the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division IX of the Bombay-II Collectorate dated 30-3-1984. The brief facts are the Appellants herein manufactured Chemical laboratory and fine chemical. They are also engaged in the activity and of repacking and purification of laboratory and fine chemicals. The purification is carried out by them by process of recrystallisation and distillation. In their classification list from 1 -4-1983 they had shown that such process of purification and distilation were not process of manufacture and they claimed exemption for such goods under Notification 77/83 dated 1-3-1983 as the value of all excisable goods cleared by them during ...
Tag this Judgment!Zeeko Shoe Factory Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC635Tri(Delhi)
1. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellants had obtained an Advance Licence under the duty entitlement exemption scheme for import, inter alia, of the following goods in respect of which a dispute has arisen :- "PU Foam Laminated with 26,153R/Mtrs. Rs. 6,00,000/- Nylon Tricot/Velvet/Sandwitched 2. It was found on examination by the Chemical Examiner that the width of the goods was 154.5 cms. as against the width upto 150 cms. for which the import licence was issued. The Deputy Collector of Customs held that the goods were not covered by Notification No. 117/78-Cus.(as amended) as the specifications of the goods imported were not in conformity with those given in the DEEC No. 007/57 dated 4-6-1985. He did not allow the exemption to duty and demanded a duty of Rs. 2,42,802/- on the goods. Since the goods had been cleared under a bond, the conditions of the bond were enforced for recovery of the duty. The appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay was rejected on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Spinners Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC522Tri(Delhi)
1. The classification of cellulosic spun yarn manufactured by blending viscose fibre of cellulosic origin (predominant in weight) with non-cellulosic waste (falling under TI 18(iv) is the subject-matter in dispute in this appeal - the appellants' claim classification under TI 18-111(1) of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff which reads as "Cellulosic spun yarn - yarn in which man made fibre of cellulosic origin predominates in weight and...1) not containing any man made fibres of non-cellulosic origin." While the Department has classified the yarn under TI 18-IH(ii) as "containing man made fibres of non-cellulosic origin." The appellants manufacture various kinds of cellulosic spun yarn falling under Tariff Item 18(III) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. For the first time they began to manufacture a new item of yarn viscose/Non-cellulosic synthetic Waste Yarn falling under Tariff Item 18(III)(i) i.e. man made fibres of cellulosic origin which predominates in weig...
Tag this Judgment!