Delhi Court September 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 10 of about 93 results (0.016 seconds)Collector of Customs Vs. Continental Construction Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1993)(63)ELT373TriDel
1. The Department has come in appeal against the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The lower authority has remanded the matter vide the impugned order to the original authority on the ground that the case was decided by the said original authority without issuing a show cause notice to the respondents herein.2. The learned DR, Shri Prabhat Kumar for the appellant - Collector, urges that the impugned order is not correct inasmuch a detailed query memo was given by the Department to the respondents herein. That query memo itself serves the purpose of the show cause notice and a hearing was also accorded to the respondents. On this basis, he submits that there was no need for a formal show cause notice. He also urges that the requirement of a show cause notice as laid down in the Customs Act is only for the purpose of confiscation of goods or imposition of penalty on a person. The Act nowhere lays down that a show cause notice should also be issued wher...
Tag this Judgment!Parjan Brothers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(38)LC359Tri(Delhi)
1. The applicants have made a prayer for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 13,203.33. Shri T.P.S. Kang, learned Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the applicant. He reiterated the contentions made in the application for stay. Shri Kang pleaded that in the show cause notice dated 26th June, 1987 the Asstt.Collector had proposed to assess the goods, viz., tag-guns under Chapter 85 but the Asstt. Collector as well as Collector (Appeals) have mentioned Heading 82.01/04. No corrigendum was issued, and as such, there was denial of principles of natural justice. Shri Kang pleaded for the grant of stay.2. Shri S.K. Roy, learned SDR, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, pleaded that full opportunity was given to the applicant for filing a proper reply, and the Asstt. Collector has proceeded on the basis of the reply filed by the applicant, and Collector (Appeals) has also made observations. He has pleaded for the rejection of the stay application. Shri Roy fur...
Tag this Judgment!Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(58)ELT76TriDel
1. In both these appeals, common issue of facts and law is involved.Hence, they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. This appeal arises from order-in-appeal dated 17-12-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is the grant of benefit of exemption from payment of duty as per Notification No. 179/85-C.E., dated 1-8-1985 as amended by Notification No. 78/86-CE.The appellants Neyveli Lignite Corporation, a Government of India Enterprise, is producing lignite as well as Agglomerated Lignite which falls under sub-heading 2702.00 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 179/85 as amended by Notification No. 78/86 which exempts goods falling under sub-heading 2702.00.3. A show cause notice dated 27-2-1987 was issued by Superintendent of Central Excise, Virudhachalam under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 demanding a duty of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!