Delhi Court March 1996 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.
Renu Bindra Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT622TriDel
1. On the occasion of appellant's marriage in 1987, her cousin living in Hong Kong purchased "Xerox Copier/Paper Master/P/M Camera for offset printing and sent it to appellant, as marriage present. On behalf of the appellant invoice, showing price of Hong Kong $ 6,500 and connected documents were produced along with the cash memo relating to the purchase by donor's purchaser which was of the date 4-4-1987 for a price of Hong Kong $ 15,600. The correctness of the invoice was doubted on the basis of price of 6,500 said to have been noticed for a similar copier made in U.K. The Deputy Collector passed an order adopting the U.K price as the basis and giving due weightage to the different source of origin (the machine imported by the appellant was of Japanese origin and imported from Hong Kong) and giving discount available in practice, Deputy Collector fixed the assessable value at Rs. 75,000/-. He rejected the contention that the machine was an old one on the basis of physical verificati...
Baroda Rayon Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT469TriDel
1. The period in question is from 1-8-1983 to 30-9-1984. Appellant was manufacturing Polyester Filament Yarn and in such manufacture, producing and using Mono Ethylene Glycol and Di-Methyl Tetraphalate.Methanol was a bye-product and surplus Glycol was a waste product. At the relevant time the residuary Tariff Item 68 specifically excluded all sorts of alcohol including alcoholic liquor for human consumption.Appellant was not paying excise duty on surplus Mono-Ethylene Glycol.Show cause notice was issued on 3-8-1988 requiring the appellant to show cause why duty should not be demanded on this waste product.Appellant resisted the show cause notice on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Additional Collector overruled these objections and passed an order confirming the show cause notice. This order is now challenged.2. The first contention is that the show cause notice was beyond the period of six months contemplated under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. United Polymers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT493TriDel
1. These revenue appeals are directed against common Order-in-Original No. 79/CEX/1988, dated 16-3-1988 of Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune.2. The respondents have moved the four indentical Misc. applications to raise the preliminary objection that the review order passed in their case was time barred.3. Arguing on these Misc. Applications the ld. Advocate for the respondents submitted that under Section 35E(1) the Board can review the order of the Collector of Central Excise but the same has to be done within one year under Section 35E(1) from the date of the decision or the order. In this case the adjudication order was issued on 16-3-1988 by Collector of Central Excise, Pune while it was attested by his Superintendent on 14-3-1988 and was stencilled on 10-3-1988. The Collector of Central Excise, therefore, must have signed the order prior to 14-3-1988. Since the review order issued by the Board is signed on 15-3-1989 and also issued on that date, the decision was tak...
Universal Wires and Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT528TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Universal Wires and Industries, Patna, the issue for our consideration is whether the drawback amount which the appellants got from the Government should be included in the assessable value of the wires and cables. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables. Some of the wires and cables were supplied to the State Electricity Boards. The State Electricity Boards utilised these wires and cables in the projects funded by I.B.R.D. As per Government's directions, the goods supplied to the I.B.R.D. Projects were considered as deemed export. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta had held that as the appellants got extra money in the form of duty drawback, the amounts representing the duty drawback was definitely a consideration flowing from the buyer to the assessee for which the assessee had agreed to sell the goods.2. The matter was posted for hearing on 27-3-1996. The appellants have desired the matter to be decided on ...
Multiweld Wires (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT683TriDel
1. The appellants have claimed refund of duty on the ground that their product 'Roll take up machine' is to be classified under Heading 84.59(ii) of the Customs Tariff Act. The machine, according to the appellants, performs the function of rolling the wire manufactured by the importers and also of cutting the welded wire mesh. The claim for classification under Heading 84.59 (ii) is said to be substantiated by stating that the imported item is a machine designed for production of a commodity i.e. that their entire welded wire mesh making plant consists of automatic machines and the imported machine is motor driven with adjustable speed. The automatic control of the driving motor takes place by the oscillation of the fabric tension roller. The alternative claim is that the machine is a machine tool for working metals and therefore, could be considered for classification under 84.45/48.2. We have heard Shri K.K. Jha, learned DR who submits that even according to the appellants, as broug...
Collector of Customs Vs. Jasmine Commercial Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC258Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the Order-in-appeal dated 23-8-1988. In this appeal, the Revenue contend that the importer had imported M.S. Defective Coils of Italian origin at US $ 215 in May, 1987; which is an undervaluation price. A show cause notice had been issued to the importer calling for their explanation on difference of price. The same was challenged before the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court had passed the order to allow bonding of the subject goods under Section 49 without payment of duty and to decide the case after receiving reply to the show cause notice from the importers on or before 2-8-1988. The said order of the High Court was complied with. In the meantime, the importers preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) against the assessment order. The Collector (Appeals) admitted the importers appeal on the following grounds : 1. The department has accepted the contracted price earlier and hence contract cannot be rejected without valid reasons. ...
G.T.C. Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT313TriDel
1. The present application has been filed by the Revenue for the dismissal of the appeals on the ground that the appellants failed to renew the Bank Guarantees.2. Arguing on the application Shri N.K. Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that vide Stay Order Nos. 140 & 141/93-D, dated 17-8-1993 the appellants were directed to deposit Rs. 5 crores in Appeal No. E/5208/92-D and Rs. 13 crores in A. No. E/5233/92-D in cash and to furnish the Bank Guarantee for the balance amount of duty in both the appeals. Against that order of the Tribunal the appellants moved the writ petition being writ petition No. 834/94 before the Delhi High Court and the Court passed the first Order on 3-5-1994 and the Final Order on 26-8-1994 whereby the Court directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 18 crores in cash and furnish the Bank Guarantee in a sum of Rs. 17 crores and also an undertaking to safeguard payment of balance of Rs. 34 crores in both these appeals and time for compliance was extended...
Peico Electronics and Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT480TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Peico') being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal, dated 11-3-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta.2. The matter relates to the inclusion of the cost of Stylus while clearing gramophones/record players which fitted with the Pick Up Heads. In the Pick Up Heads the Stylus is fitted. The appellants had contended that when gramophones/record players are cleared from the factory, the Stylus is cleared separately and is not fitted in the Pick Up Heads and that it is only in their service centre that the Stylus cleared from the factory along with the gramophones/record players (duly fitted with Pick Up Heads) is actually fitted in the Pick Up Heads. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that Stylus is cleared from the factory and that it is an essential part of the gramophones/record players and that the record players/gramophones could not wo...
Corner Stone Brands Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT257TriDel
1. The common appellant is a company engaged in the manufacture of television sets in 3 models, 209], Perfect and Plus E. The period in dispute in these appeals is l-7-1987 to 28-2-1989. As per two agreements during the relevant period, the T.V. sets were sold by the appellant to M/s. Arvind Mills Ltd. which owned the brand name "Pyramid". The T.V. sets were manufactured and sold to M/s. Arvind Mills in this brand name. Notification No. 68/86, dated 10-2-1986 as amended, exempted T.V. sets of screen size 36 cms. and value not exceeding Rs. 5,000/-per set which attracted Basic Excise at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per set and those exceeding the value of Rs. 5,000/- per set attracted Basic Excise at the rate of Rs. 1,750/- per set. With effect from 1988 the rate of duty for sets of value exceeding Rs. 5,000/- was increased from Rs. 1,750/- to Rs. 2,000/- per set.Appellant had paid during the period at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per set on the footing that the value did not exceed Rs. 5,000/- ...
Sedco Forex International Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)58ITD177(Delhi)
1. These appeals filed by different assessees are consolidated as facts and issues are common. For the sake of convenience they are disposed of by a single order. While discussing the facts however the reference would be made to a particular assessee Mr. J. Sillard and the decision as taken in the aforesaid case would be applicable to all the cases, the facts of which are identical with those of Mr. J. Sillard.2. The assessee is a non-resident individual employed with Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. (hereinafter called SFID). The latter is a company registered in Liberia. It entered into a contract with Oil & Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter called ONGC) for drilling operations in offshore areas of India within the exclusive economic zone. As per the terms of the agreement with the Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. the assessee was assigned to work in India in a so-called "Computer basis". The agreement starting from November, 1985, was for two years. As per sched...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »