Delhi Court June 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 4 of about 33 results (0.016 seconds)Rishabh Ispat Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT171TriDel
1. The appellants have an electric furnace and are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots. As against tariff rate of Rs. 350/-per MT during the material time, steel ingots covered by CET heading No. 26 when manufactured by the electric furnace were exempt from central excise duty in excess of Rs. 200/- per MT in terms of Notification No.53/80 dated 13-5-1980. This concession was subject to the condition that ingots were manufactured out of raw materials specified in the notification. The appellants claimed that during the period 1-4-1981 to 30-9-1982 they received 273.273 MT of defective steel ingots out of which they produced after remelting 240.636 MT of ingots. The Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice on 20th May, 1983 seeking to recover differential duty at Rs. 130/- per MT on the ground that defective steel ingots not being one of the specified raw materials the benefit of concessional rate of duty at Rs. 200/- per MT in terms of Notification No. 53/80-C.E., dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!P.A.C. Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC647Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellants imported on or about February 1990 one consignment of 21 pieces of Lap Top Computer Model at a unit price of U.S.$ 1630 FOB Hong Kong from M/s. Bondwell International Ltd. On 20-2-1990, a bill of entry was filed together with invoice dated 13-2-1990. 1.2 On 30-3-1990, the appellant approached the Andhra Bank with a request to open an irrevocable letter of credit for U.S.$ 33,750 in favour of the aforesaid suppliers - M/s. Bondwell International Ltd. for 25 pieces of the Lap Top Computer Model B 310 at a unit price of U.S. $ 1350. The debit advice dated 30-3-1990 for Rs. 63,000 being 10% margin money for the letter of credit is also of the same date i.e. 30-3-1990. The said Bank has given a certificate that the credit was despatched on 2-4-1990, though it was opened on 30-3-1990 (Annexure 'D' to the appeal). Some amendments were carried out in the letter of credit by amending the name of the beneficiary and by incorporating a clause for interest, extension of expiry ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bakelite Hylam
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(51)LC436Tri(Delhi)
1. These three appeals and the Cross Objection were heard together because they involve a common question viz., Classification of prepregs P, F & G under the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff during the period 1984 onwards. While the first two appeals viz., E/814/86-C and E/1462/86-C have been filed by the department against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) deciding the Classification in favour of M/s. Banlite Hylam (BH for short), the third appeal has been filed by M/s. BH against the order-in-appeal passed subsequently taking a different view from that in the first two appeals. Collector (Appeals) did so because, by the time the third appeal came to be decided, the Tribunal had taken a decision classifying Prepregs 'P' under tariff item 17(2), Prepreg 'F' under 19-III and Prepreg 'G' under item 22F in their own case Bakelite Hylam v. Collector of Central Excise decided on 25.3.1986.The three appeals are, therefore, being disposed of by us by a common order.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!