Delhi Court December 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 1 of about 128 results (0.017 seconds)Bombay Bag Factory Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)LC114Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant M/s. Bombay Bag Factory said to have established the factory in or about 1982 imported 20,000 pairs of goods described as "magnetic luggage locks". Bill of entry and invoice were submitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, ICD, New Delhi, seeking clearance of goods as covered by OGL and classified under Heading 8301.40 of Cutoms Tariff. The import was from Singapore. The goods were of Taiwanese origin. Appellant had S.S.I, registration. Manufacturer's invoice was not produced. On examination, the goods were found to be packed in outer cardboard cartons with marks CP-801 BR and CP-822 BR and an inner cartons with marks 801 R and 822 R in respect of two types of locks. One type of locks had marking "SHOPIN (R) USA DAT No. 4766748 ROC PAT No. 36983, made in Taiwan". Other type of locks had no marks.Instruction cards were found along with the locks. The customs authority realised that the locks were mechanical number locks and not magnetic locks and were believed to be u...
Tag this Judgment!Chail Singh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT810TriDel
1. 7.532 Kgs of silver bars were seized from appellant Shri Chail Singh on 15-11-86 when he alighted from the train at Barmer railway station.The silver was kept in a cloth tied around his waist. He had a railway ticket from Lilma to Khadin. The recovery was made by railway police officers. Appellant Shri Chail Singh had no document enabling him to have possession of silver bullion. Accordingly, the silver bars were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act under the reasonable belief that the same had been smuggled from Pakistan and was therefore liable to confiscation under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The recoveries were handed over to Customs officers on 21-11-86 for further action. Test of the silver bar revealed that it was of 100% purity.Shri Chail Singh in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 stated that silver was handed over to him by appellant Shri Bansi at Jaisindhar for delivery to the latter's brother Shri Jagadisha at Barmer. H...
Tag this Judgment!Padma Packages (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT175TriDel
1. These appeals are filed by M/s. Padma Packages Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.against the order of the Collector of Central Excise Coimbatore, holding that the manufacturing activities of three of the appellants, M/s. Padma Packages, Blossom Plastics, and Satya Prakash & Company have to be clubbed together and that the other three appellants are liable to penalty in having helped these three.3. The Collector has, for the purposes of clubbing the clearances together cited the existence of the factors common to more than one unit. These are that the owners of all the units are three brothers, their wives and their fathers; one person is the authorised signatory for all the units except one; one employee of M/s. Super Poly Products deals with excise matters of all the units; the units have a common office; the three units in question manufacture the same commodity; huge amount have been paid on behalf of the other and temporary loans has been exchanged between them; all units are functioning t...
Tag this Judgment!Hasmukh Chinubhai Sheth Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT42TriDel
1. Appellants herein imported second-hand machines for which they declared the value of DM 46460.00 CIF. Since the machines were second-hand, they were got examined by the customs which included an expert on machinery from the panel available in the customs house. The total machines imported were four and the opinion of the panel expert was that in respect of one machine the chartered engineer's certificate produced by the appellants was found matching and in the case of one machine the expert gave his opinion that though it is old, it is in good condition and the value could be between DM 20,000 to DM 21,000 instead of the declared value DM 7000.00. In the case of two other machines, the serial numbers on the machines did not match with those in the chartered engineer's certificate produced by the appellants. The panel expert found the machine to be comparatively new in design and from their condition they appeared to have been manufactured in 1974/1975. Some of the plates found on t...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Zoloto Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT162TriDel
1. The Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had permitted the refund of duty accumulated in RG-23A Part II register on account of the respondents herein opting out of the Modvat Credit Scheme to that of availing exemption as SSI unit. The credit of duty would have accrued to the respondents herein had they taken higher deemed modvat credit admissible to them.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of gun metal valves and cocks and were availing modvat credit facilities on inputs used for the manufacture of the above finished product. They applied for refund of Rs. 4420/- in respect of balance in their RG 23A Part II register up to 16-7-1990 and receipt from 16-7-1990 to 24-8-1990. The Asstt. Collector rejected their claim for refund of credit of Rs. 4420/-. However, the Collector (Appeals) allowed the...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Iron and Steel Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT190TriDel
1. The appellants herein were engaged in the manufacture of steel flats and they used specified inputs in the manufacture of their final products which they cleared from the factory during the period 13-5-1988 to 30-6-1988. They filed a declaration as required in terms of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules on 1-7-1988 and also applied for allowing Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57H on the inputs used by them in the manufacture of final products cleared during the above mentioned period i.e. before filing declaration under Rule 57G. The request for credit under Rule 57H was rejected by the Assistant Collector, holding that the harmonious construction of Rule 57H(1)(i)(ii) would lead to the conclusion that credit would be available only if the inputs are lying in stock or received in the factory after filing the declaration under Rule 57G. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority holding that w.e.f. 15-4-1987 when Notification 117/87 amended Rule 57H, the...
Tag this Judgment!Major M.C. Sood (Retd.) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT180TriDel
1. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that their application for early hearing was dismissed vide dismissal Order No. M/185/95-NRB, dated 31st May, 1995, on the ground among others that they were not present at the time of hearing and had not requested for adjournment.The Ld. Advocate submits that they never received notice for hearing intimating the date fixed. Both Court Master and Ld. DR confirm this.2. Ld. DR has, therefore, no objection regarding restoration of the application.3. I find that though notice had gone to SDR, no notice, in fact, appears to have been sent to the applicants.3.2 In view of this, since no notice appears to have been issued the application is restored and taken up for hearing on merits for early hearing.4. Ld. Advocate submits that the applicant is 62 years old. He is drawing pension and has income only to cover daily expenses. The appellant is also a patient of hypertension and coupled with his age this calls for early hearing of the case since ...
Tag this Judgment!Suessen Textile Bearings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT377TriDel
2. Two of the appeals namely C/2550/85-B and C/567/95-B have been filed by the importer (assessee) against the order of the Collector (Appeals) whereas the Appeal No. C/2192/85-B has been filed by the Department against the order of the Collector (Appeals).3. The main issues involved are as to whether (1) the item called as Foot Step Bearings were classifiable under Heading 84.63 or 84.38(1) of CTA, 1975; and (2) whether Roller Retainers/Metal cages were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 35/75 (as amended).4. The Learned Counsel stated that the Department has assessed the Foot Step Bearings under 84.63 as 'bearings' but the importer had applied for re-assessment under 84.38(1) on the ground that they were components of textile machinery classifiable as such.5. In this connection, he would draw attention to the Bills of Entry, the invoices and the respective headings.6. It was his contention that the item Foot Step Bearing although described as 'bearing' is a simple mechanic...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Navinchandra Premji and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT322TriDel
1. This is a Department's appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 3-4-86.2. The respondents have sent a letter dated 18-12-1995 requesting that the case may be decided on merits in view of the Order Nos.509-510/85-B [1987 (27) E.L.T. 706 (T)] passed in the case of P.R.Parekh.3. Learned DR stated that this is a case of import of "Folleys's Baloon Catheters" and the issue involved was whether they could be considered as "Suction Catheters" eligible for benefit in terms of ITC Policy and the exemption Notification No. 208/81.4. The issue is already covered by the orders of the Tribunal cited by the respondents, namely, in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v.P.R. Parekh, Bombay reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 706 (Tribunal). That apart, the issue was also decided in the case of Vishal Surgical Equipment Co. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 393 (Tribunal) and Instamedic International v. Collector of Customs, Coimbatore reported in 1994 (4) ...
Tag this Judgment!Bongaingaon Refinery and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT25TriDel
1. Among the products manufactured by the appellant is orthoxylene.With effect from 1-3-1986 consequent upon coming into force of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the appellants classified orthoyxylene under Heading 2710.39 of this Tariff. This classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector. Subsequently based on the clarification dated 21-9-1986 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, it was decided that orthoxylene of a purity exceeding 95% would be classifiable as a separate chemically defined compound under Chapter 29 of the Tariff. Apparently based on this clarification, two notices were issued to the appellant for the period 1-3-1986 to 21-9-1986 and 22-9-1986 to 14-1-1987 proposing recovery of the differential duty on orthoxylene cleared during those periods. The notices were dated 1-6-1988 and invoked the extended period of five years prescribed in the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act on the ground that the appellant in t...
Tag this Judgment!