Delhi Court May 1987 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.
Union Carbide (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC318
1. The two questions for decision arising in this appeal are whether propylene obtained by the appellants who are holders of L-6 licence for start up their plant engaged in the manufacture of petrochemicals (polyethylene, olefine, chemicals and the like) was eligible to benefit of exemption from duty under notification No. 276/67, dated 21-12-1967 as- amended; and (2) whether appellants application for refund should be rejected because of preliminary objection raised by the respondent for the first time before the Tribunal that the appellants have no locus stand to file the application for refund and this could be done only by the manufacturers or producers of polypropylene i.e., National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. (NOCIL).2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his order dated 3-1-1975 rejected the refund claim for Rs. 52,855.73 dated 24-7-1978 preferred by the appellants observing that he did not find any valid ground to entertain the appellants claim for refund of dut...
Food Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC613Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants M/s Food Corporation of India Ltd. imported by s.s.Buchenstain one case of spares for Bullar machine under bill of entry Cash No. 3112 of 13-4-1981. Duty charged therefor and collected was Rs. 89,176.69 paise. Subsequently they filed a refund claim for Rs. 58,366.91 paise, the ground claim being mentioned therein as "excess duty charged on replaced parts". This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector under his order dated 31-5-1982. He had that the appellants had claimed replacement of the goods free of duty in terms of notification 80/70 Cust dated 29.8.1970 but that as the goods imported were clearances for wrongly supplied goods and not replacement for defective goods the notification did not apply. The appellants preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) under order dated 23.12.1982. He pointed out that as against the originally supplied goods on which duty of Rs. 30,809.78 paise had been paid but the same had been subseq...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Consolidated Steel and Alloys
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT286TriDel
1. These two appeals before us relate to the same facts in respect of the same manufacturer and therefore have been taken up for disposal together. For the sake of convenience we deal with Appeal No. 902/86-B1 first. This appeal is filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, against the order of the Collector (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufactured steel ingots and availed of benefit of Notification No. 201/79 during the period October, 1980 to December 1980 and August 1981 to May 1982 in respect of refractories material used by them in the factory. Type of refractories as set out in the lower authorities order are as under: (i) Steel clad chrom mag. bricks and other high grade of refractories to resist higher temperature. (No set-off taken on this item). (iii) Fire clay refractories like B.P. sets, fire bricks, nozzle, laddie sleeves etc.In respect of (i), the benefit of Notification No. 201/79 was not availed of by the respondents. In respect...
Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)(30)ELT766TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of soap and other excisable goods.Soap manufactured by them is liable to Central Excise duty under Item 15 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. In the manufacture of soap, various kinds of oils are used and some of the oils are hydrogenated in the course of manufacturing process and these hardened oils are commonly known as Hardened Technical Oil. Under Notification No. 8(3)56-CE dated 14-1-56 vegetable product falling under Tariff Item 13 of the Central Excise Tariff was exempted from the whole of Central Excise duty if intended for use in the manufacture of soap, provided that the procedure laid down in Chapter-X of the Central Excises Rules was followed. In the budget of 1978, this exemption Notification was rescinded by Notification No. 70/78-CE dated 1-3-78 and the Chapter-X procedure under which appellants were using hardened technical oil for the manufacture of soap free of duty, stood withdrawn. In view of the a...
Lalitha Imports and Exports Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC117
1. The appellants imported a consignment described as "Soap Raw Material" TFM 65% Min. Basis (Soap Stock) (Palm Acid oil unprocessed FFA more than 25%). Test report of the sample drawn from the consignment showed that the goods were "Acid Oil". Classification of the goods for the purpose of customs duty is in dispute. The Department has assessed the goods under Heading 15.08/13 of the Central Tariff Act, 1975 and the assessment has been upheld by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order. The appellants, in their appeal memo and also through their counsel, have claimed that the goods are classifiable under Heading 15.07 as these are remnant of palm oil after removal of purified oil and for the I.T.C. purpose these have been treated as palm oil. Shri Kunhikrishnan has relied on this Tribunal's decision in the case of Kusum Products Ltd, Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, reported in 1985 (19) ELT 479, in which, for the purpose of Central Excise duty acid oil has bee...
Raga Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: (1991)(36)LC462Tri(Delhi)
1. Under the enplaned order, the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Madras(a) demanded duty of Rs. 32,810.80 from M/s. Raga Industries (the appellants) on the heating elements manufactured and cleared by them from 1.3.1979 to 28.7.1981 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the "rules", for short); (b) confiscated under Rule 173Q, 72 heating elements and 17 band heaters, valued at Rs. 20.505/- seized from die appellants but gave them an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,0007-; and (c) imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,0007- on the appellants under Rule 173Q.2. The dispute arose because the department held that heating elements manufactured by the appellants fell under sub-item (iv) of Hem 22F of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET, for short) since, on analysis, it was found that the mineral fibre/yarn constituent of the unities piodnminated over the other constituents (M.S. ring, Nichromc wire, copper strand) in the proportion of 97.5 : 37.5. It w...
industrial Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT457TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay holding that Nigrosine is a synthetic organic dyestuff manufactured by the appellants and assessable under Tariff Item No. 14D CET. The appellants plea is that Nigrosine manufactured by them is used for mass colouration of phenolic and Urea Resin moulding powders, Melamine Resin powders and carbon papers and is not used in any dyeing process as required under T.I. 14D for an item to be assessed thereunder and pleaded that the goods should be assessed under T.1.68 CET.2. The learned counsel for the appellants, Shri B.V. Desai, has stressed that for any goods to be covered under 14D on the condition precedent for assessment under this is that these should be used in dyeing process. He read out the Tariff Item which is reproduced as under: "Synthetic organic dyestuffs (including pigment dyestuffs) and synthetic organic derivatives used in any dyeing process." He pleaded that the word "used in dyei...
Western Bengal Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC194
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Bombay.2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the Order-in-Original are as under: "M/s Rawji Amarsi (a partnership firm) were engaged in the manufacture and sale of Phenolic Moulding Powders and Synthetic resins under their Brand name 'Amarite' in their factory at Majiwade, Thane since 1962. Under a lease agreement executed by M/s Rawji Amarsi with M/s Western Bengal Coal Fields Ltd. (herein after referred as the party) the factory at Majiwade along with the business of the firm was leased to the latter (the party) for a period of five years, effect from 1.6.74. M/s Western Bengal Coal Fields Ltd. continued the manufacture and sale of phenolic moulding powders (herein after referred as the goods) under the same brand-name of 'Amarite' at the same factory. Pending issue of Loan Licence in their own favour for manufacture of Synthetic Resins and the goods at the factory of M/s Rawji Amarsi, 44865 Kgs...
Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Associated Cements Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC609Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals relate to the common issue involving excess production incentive granted under exemption Notification No. 198/76-CE dated 16-6-76. The same are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2. In both these cases, the claims for refund of duty in terms of the above Notification were received by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise after expiry of six months from the dates of payment of duty, but within the period of six months from the date of the approval of the declaration of base clearance. The refund claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise as barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellants filed appeals, which were allowed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence, these present appeals before us by the Revenue.3. Arguing for the Revenue, Shri Rajhans, learned J.D.R. has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Namdang Tea Co.Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of...
Atic Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC433Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Notification No. 180/61-CE dated 23-11-1961 exempted dyes specified in the Schedule annexed to the Notification from the whole of Central Excise Duty leviable thereon, if and only if such dyes were manufactured from any other dyes on which duty of excise or countervailing duty had already been paid."Solubilised Vats" was specified as one of the dyes in the Schedule to that Notification. M/s Atic Industries Limited, the appellants herein, were manufacturing Synthetic Organic Dyestuffs falling under Tariff Item 14-D of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and were availing special procedure for movement of duty paid materials or component parts for use in the manufacture Of finished excisable goods under Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They received 2000 Kg. Indigo Pure on which countervailing duty was paid as per Bill of Entry No. 936 dated 9-10-1975 and they took the credit of Rs. 66,153.68 on account...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »