Delhi Court June 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 3 of about 33 results (0.021 seconds)Himson Textile Engg. Ind. P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)LC39Tri(Delhi)
1. The proper assessment of ceramic thread guides for the purpose of countervailing duty is the issue for determination in this appeal. The Department has classified them under T.I. 23B of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff while the importer claims classification under T.I. 68.2. The appellants are manufacturers of textile machinery. They had imported 15,000 pieces of thread guides required in manufacture of uptwisting machines. These goods were assessed to duty under Notification 179/80-Cus. and duty was charged @ 40% + 25% and CVD under T.I. 23B CET @ 30% + 5% of 30%. According to the appellants the goods are properly classifiable under T.I. 68 and duty is chargeable @ 12% as the imported items have no separate entity or utility except as part and parcel of textile machinery viz. uptwisting machines. Both the authorities below classified the items under T.I. 23B which covers chinaware and porcelainware, all sorts, while T.I. 68 covers all other articles not elsewhere specified.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Novelties Glass Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT194TriDel
1. The present miscellaneous application emerges from the Tribunal's order No. 1033 to 1038/90-A dated the 10th July, 1990. Shri K.K.Kapoor, the learned Consultant, has appeared on behalf of the applicants and reiterated the contentions made in the miscellaneous application and submitted that the Revenue authorities have not implemented the order passed by this Tribunal. He has also stated that the Revenue has not filed any appeal against the order and as such the order has become final. Shri K.K. Bhatia, the learned Jt. CDR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue and pleaded that in the present matter there is unjust enrichment and as a similar matter is pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal should await the decision. In this connection he referred the matters CCE, Meerut v. Electric Controls & Switchboards (P) Ltd. reported in 1991 (34) ECR 21J and Union of India v. Lalit Bhaichand Ravani reported in 1991 (34) ECR 61J. In reply, Shri Kapoor pleaded that the applicants vide l...
Tag this Judgment!Om Metals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. : in Re.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1992]193ITR57(Delhi)
ORDERFacts in brief giving rise to the issue to be decided by the Special Bench. - The applicant presented an application under section 245C(1) on June 20, 1988, requesting the Settlement Commission to have its 'case' settled for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1988-89. The said petition was admitted by the Commission by its order under section 245D(1) dated November 9, 1989. After the presentation of the petition but before the name was admitted by the Commission, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment for the assessment year 1986-87 on March 29, 1989, and raised a demand. We were told by Shri G. C. Sharma, Advocate, that, by an order dated March 30, 1989, the Assessing Officer had stayed the collection of this demand till December 31, 1989, without calling upon the applicant to furnish any security/guarantee. We have further been told that, in view of the order passed by the Commission under section 245D(1), the applicant had paid the additional amount of income-tax payable o...
Tag this Judgment!Avi Autos Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT184TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16-3-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay by which he had upheld the order dated 4-4-1989 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Group 2 B, New Customs House, Bombay. The facts, in brief, are that the appeallants, herein, imported a consignment of tyre, tube and flap sets for which they filed a Bill of Entry on February,1989 and claimed the clearance against the entry at Sl. No. 46 of Appendix 6 of Import Policy 1988-91 and also claimed exemption under Notifications 185/88 and 342/76, dated 26-5-1988 and 2-8-1976 respectively. Entry 46 of Appendix 6 1988-91 Import Policy contains a list of various categories of importers who can import goods under an Open General Licence against the above-mentioned entry. The relevant entry for the purpose of this case is the category at (d), which is "Association of owners of vehicles in which the tyres are used and approved as such by the Department of Industrial Development...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. thermit Alloys (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC717Tri(Delhi)
1. The present application emerges from Tribunal's Order No. E/33/91/B1 dated 25-2-1991. Shri M.S. Arora, JDR, who has appeared on behalf of the appellant-Collector pleaded that the order was passed by the Tribunal on 25-2-1991 as the Collector filed an application for condonation of delay which was received in the registry on the same day but due to inadvertence the same could not be linked with the main file by the registry and as such no notice of the same was taken. Shri Arora stated that being not satisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal on 25-2-1991, the Collector has moved an application for restoration of appeal by another letter dated 6-6-1991. The Revenue has prayed for treating the application for restoration of appeal as an application for rectification of mistake. Shri T.R. Sastry, the learned Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent does not oppose the request of the learned JDR.2. After hearing both sides, we accept the prayer of the Revenue for tre...
Tag this Judgment!Garware Plastics and Polyester Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC70
1. The appellants had imported in this case Pigments (Dyestuffs) and had filed Bill of Entry dated 19-12-1980 seeking classification of the product under Heading 32.04/12(2) of the Customs Tariff. Later they filed refund claim for reassessment of the goods under Heading 3204/12(3) or (4) or (5) at 60% + 15% + CVD 30% + 5% but the same was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the imported items are colours only and not Dyestuff. The Assistant Collector has quoted the test report partly but not in full. He has quoted "Spirit soluble synthetic organic dyestuff' instead of the report which reads the sample is in the form of "Colour powder composed of synthetic organic dyestuff spirit soluble colour". The appellants had also furnished literature of Toaka Chemical Co. Ltd. which states that "Oleosol (R) fast colours are unique metal complex due of organic solvent soluble type". However, the Collector (Appeals) has also not considered that claim but instead has dealt with t...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Raj Gupta Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC55Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant imported a second hand Toyota Corolla Sedan LE-4-Dr 1985, model CC1587 car on 17-6-1986 against CCP No. 3079296 dated 19-9-1989 and filed Bill of Entry No. 109885 dated 7-10-1989 for its clearance. Since the car was not listed in the 1985 World Car Catalogue, the Asstt. Collector based its assessment on the ex-works price of 1985 Model Toyota Corolla SR-4-Dr 1600 CC car which as per the 1985 World Car Catalogue, was Japanese Yen 12,08,000. After allowing a discount of 46% on account of usage and further ad hoc deduction of Rs. 500/-, the FOB value of the car was worked out at Rs. 64,924.42. After adding Rs. 11,374.42 on account of freight and 1.125% of the FOB value as insurance and 0.75% landing charges on the total assessable value of Rs. 77,157.20 the duty chargeable was worked out as Rs. 1,79,697.20.The value of air-conditioner and radio cassette player fitted in the car was declared as Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively, and they were assessed on merits. On...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)LC211Tri(Delhi)
1. This application is filed by the appellants requesting to condone the delay in filing the appeal. There is a delay of 335 days in filing this appeal.2. This application has been dragging on before this Bench for more than a year and it was being adjourned on one or the other ground. When this matter had come up for hearing on 14-1-1991 Shri M.K. Jain, Managing Director of the Appellant Company emphasised as per letter dated 12-1-1991 of their submission that delay was mainly due to the negligence and omission on the part of the Advocate and requested for some time to enable him to get an affidavit of Advocate explaining the delay in filing the appeal. On granting time he has not filed any affidavit but produced a letter dated 4-3-1991 issued by M/s. Kantawala & Co., Advocates & Solicitors, Bombay explaining the delay which is in the form of opinion.3. The impugned order dated 31-3-1987 was received by the appellants on 25-4-1987 and the appeal required to be filed within 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Cement Cos. Ltd., Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT178TriDel
1. This appeal arises out and is directed against the Order-in-original No. 03/CH. 38/1988 dated 25-11-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, indore.2. The charge of the Department against the appellants is that the appellants did not pay central excise duty in terms of approved classification list on ceramic constructional goods during the period 1-3-1986 to 4-5-1986. The appellants paid central excise duty during the said period on ceramic constructional goods @ 12% adv. instead of 15% adv., being the rate of duty approved in the classification list and that the appellants wilfully by mis-statement evaded central excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,62,034.36 for the period 1-3-1986 to 4-5-1986.The Additional Collector confirmed the demand by invoking the extended period of 5 years under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. Hence, this appeal.4. Shri Prasad, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants, submitted that apart from the merits of the case the entire de...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Microprocess Controls Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT897TriDel
1. The appellants herein imported the following as described in the Bill of Entry No. 7058 dated 7-2-1986 :-"PCR & Comp. Parts PCXT Customs Tariff Heading/Exemp- tion NotificationConnectors 67/85 dt. 17-3-1985PCB (multilayer) Capacitors 85.18/27 On scrutiny of the documents and examination of the goods the department issued a show cause notice dated 27-5-1986. It stated, inter alia, as follows :- The importers made a declaration under OGL Appendix 6, list 8 Pt. I serial No. 565 of the Export-Import Policy, 1985-88. They also made a declaration on the back of the B/E regarding correctness and truthfulness of the various documents such as Packing List, Invoice etc. submitted alongwith the B/E. The importers, claimed concessional rate of duty on the components of PC/XT as follows :--------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. Description of GIF value Rate of duty & Notfn. Amount ofNo. goods. declared No. duty Rs. Rs.1.L.S.I.C. 2,87,339/- 25% (67/85 dt.17...
Tag this Judgment!