Delhi Court January 1992 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.
Manorama Sewing Machines Pvt. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1992
Reported in: (1993)(63)ELT642TriDel
1. The appellants herein imported 89 pieces of used motors and 4128 pieces of PVC bags of V belts under bill of entry dated 7-8-1990. The value of the goods was declared as Rs. 16,870/-. On first check the goods were valued by the concerned Appraiser at around Rs. 85,000/-. On re-examination they were valued by a Committee of two Appraisers at Rs. 46,608/- (Rs. 21,300/- for the used motors and Rs. 25,308/- for V belts). The invoice value was not accepted by the Department and the charge of undervaluation was confirmed. The goods were confiscated for import in contravention of Para 5(3)(iii) of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 read with Section 3 of Imports and Exports Act, 1947 on the ground that the REP licence produced by the importer did not cover old and used goods brought as disposal items. The importers were given an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, A personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was also imposed for undervaluation.Hence this appeal.2. We have...
Texplas (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1992
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT219TriDel
1. Shri M. Ganesan, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in this case the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut by his order dated 16-3-1985 has imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules and have demanded duty of Rs. 10,821.30 under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 on the charge that the appellants had used power in the manufacture of Air-Guides and have unlawfully availed the exemption under Notification No. 179/77-C.E. The learned Counsel submitted that the Additional Collector has erred in his finding in this regard because power was used only on a particular day on the visit of the officer and that too in a very minor process.Smt. J.M.S. Sundaram, the learned Senior Departmental Representative on the other hand pointed out that the Collector has relied upon the statement of the appellants dated 29-10-1983 in which they had admitted power was used regular...
Ratlam Straw Board Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1992
Reported in: (1992)(61)ELT468TriDel
1. The appellants herein are manufacturers of straw board which fell under the erstwhile T.I. 17 C.E.T. Excise duty on straw board is charged ad valorem. The rate of duty applicable is 40% ad valorem but by virtue of Notification No. 70/76-CE, dated 16-3-1976 concessional rates have been provided for straw board cleared by any manufacturer for home consumption during the financial year as follows :- The appellants had been clearing straw board from their factory at Ratlam after paying concessional rate of duty applicable vide the aforesaid notification but on scrutiny of the bills and invoices issued by them to their customers, it was noticed that they have recovered C.E. duty from their customers at the full tariff rate i.e. 40% ad valorem. This excess realisation in the garb of duty by the appellants herein enhanced the assessable value and show cause notices were issued by the department demanding differential duty on the excess recoveries so made by them as per formula prescribed ...
Collr. of Customs Vs. Kodagu Coffee Growers Co-op.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1992
Reported in: (1992)(61)ELT300TriDel
1.1 The respondents herein imported machines and equipments required for processing of coffee seeds; vide their letter dated 11-9-84 they requested for registration of their contract under T.H. 84.66 of CY A 1975 under Project Import (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965.The original assessment authority refused registration of the contract on the ground that the ITC licence did not bear the Project Import endorsement as required by para 177(1) of the Hand Book of Import & Export Procedures AM 1985. On appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) respondents herein succeeded. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The lower appellate authority has observed relying on para 177(2) of the aforesaid Hand Book that the proper authority to decide whether a particular import is eligible to the concessional rate of customs duty as project import is the Customs authority. Such authority may allow the benefit of concessional duty, where permissible...
New Rajdhani Co-operative Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1992
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ163
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) First petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The services of the petitioner were taken over by the respondent-MCD on 11.7.89. The second respondent is constituent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act which gave electric supply to the society in April, 1990 which led to filing of writ petition, it -being Cwp No. 1448/90. During the course of hearing of that writ petition, it has been brought to the notice of the court that there was a demand of electricity charges amounting to Rs-93,067/81 as due from the society. This amount thereafter the petitioner Society paid and electric connection supply was restored. Thereafter the second respondent-DESU raised another bill for Rs.69,527.50 allegedly on the ground of late payment of the aforesaid amount and also raised a demand on account of reconnection charges. (2) When we heard the matter on 18th July,1991, we wanted to know as to how an amount of Rs.69,527.00 has been arrived at by th...
Veena Saxena Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT266
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the D.D.A. was estopped from demanding payment in lump sum for a flat which was registered under the Registration Scheme on New Pattern 1979 (for short Scheme) of intending purchasers of flats to be constructed by the Delhi Development Authority. It is further submitted that the respondent has made a demand at escalated price which is not payable by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Delhi Development Authority has not stated the total number of flats allotted by them under the Scheme on Hire Purchase basis or on Cash Down basis. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in D.D.A. Flats App. Association v. Delhi Development Authority 1987 Rlr 514 and submitted that the question raised by him is directly covered by the judgment of this Court.(2) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that under the Scheme itself 40% of the M.I.G. flats were to ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sae (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT212TriDel
1. The issue involved in these cases is whether the process, namely, cutting, welding, punching, galvanising of duty paid angles, channels, flats etc. of iron and steel amounts to manufacture.2. The relevant facts are, the respondents purchase duty-paid M.S.angles and flats etc. of specified sizes punch/drill and galvanise them. These M.S. angles are cleared from the factory as such and subsequently they are used in the power transmission tower at sites.They filed classification list No. 40/86-87 with effect from 1-3-1986 and classification list No. 126/87-88 with effect from 1-4-1987 and claimed the classification of the above products under Tariff Item 7210.10 on the ground that the process, namely, punching, drilling and galvanising does not amount to manufacture and therefore, the duty leviable is nil. The Asstt. Collector disagreed with appellants and classified the product under TI 7308.90 where the duty leviable is 15% ad valorem. On appeal, the Collector agreed with the respon...
Collector of Customs Vs. Birla Jute Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: (1992)(61)ELT100TriDel
1. These are Revenue appeals against the orders of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta who has set aside the Assistant Collector's order-in-original confirming demands raised under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents filed ten bills of entry of various dates for clearance of-Polyester Staple fibre. The goods were assessed and bills of entry were released. After clearance of the consignments and within the statutory time limit of six months, the department discovered that cess duty of 0.05% on landing cost of the goods leviable under Section 5A of the Textile Committee (Amendment) Act, 1963 and Cess Rules, 1975, had not been collected and hence demand notices were issued calling upon them for making the payment of respective amounts under each consignment. The said demands came to be confirmed by the Asstt. Collector by separate orders.3. The respondents appealed to the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta who has upheld the conten...
Ajvinder Singh Bagga Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ214
Mohd. Shanmim, J.(1) This is an application by the respondent/objector (hereinafter referred to as objector for the sae of convenience) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in preferring the objections against the award dated 6.12.1990.(2) The case of the objector is that they came to know with regard to the filing of the award on 29.7.1991. They thereafter inspected the court file and learnt that the notice of the filing of the award was allegedly served on the objector on 4.3.1991. In fact the objector were never served with the said notice inasmuch as the address of the respondent has been wrongly mentioned in the notice. The address of the respondent as given in the notice :- The Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India, New Dehi. Whereas the correct address of the respondent is :- Executive Engineer Ii, Mbr Housing Project, Cpwd, Sewa Bhawan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.(3) In the circumstances, stated above, the objector could not be deemed to...
Jagatjit Industries Ltd., Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT535; 1992(22)DRJ245
ORDERS. However, no appeal was preferred in any of the writ petitions except in writ petition No. 1409/88 - M/s. Ajudhia Distillery vs. Delhi Administration. However, even in the said writ petition the petitioners did not await for the result and rushed to this Court. We Find ourselves in perfect agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions without exhausting the equally efficacious and legal remedy which was available to them. Hence, the present writ petitions are premature and are not maintainable on this score also.(25) Assuming arguendo, that the present writ petitions are maintainable even then they are also libel to be dismissed on merits for the reasons given below.(26) It has been urged for and on behalf of the petitioners that the Excise Commissioner has no power to fix the wholesale prices except in accordance with the terms of the license on account of the fact that section 58 and 59 do not confer any such powe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »