Delhi Court January 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 7 of about 158 results (0.022 seconds)Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT580TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Varelli Textile Industries Ltd. (Now Garden Silk Mills Ltd.) against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. The Collector in his order had held :- "I demand duty amounting to Rs. 19,87,122.70 on 80,502.460 kgs. of Taspa Yarn valued at Rs. 1,65,59,336/- and Rs. 33,792/- on 1,000 kgs. of fancy yarn valued at Rs. 2,81,600.00 under Rule 9(2) read with provisions of Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944." "I also impose a penalty of Rs. 6,50,000/- under Rule 173Q(1)(a), (b) and (c) of CE Rules, 1944." 2. Shri K.S. Nanavati, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the present appeal pertains to M/s. Starlight Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. which came to be amalgamated with the appellant company. M/s.Starlight Silk Mills and was engaged in the business of processing the manmade fila- ment yarn. The company was amalgamated with M/s. Vareli Exports Pvt. Ltd. under an order dated 7-8-1986 passed by the Gujarat High Court. T...
Tag this Judgment!T.i.S.C.O. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC523Tri(Delhi)
1. In both the appeals common question of law and facts arises and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is the exigibility of 'Molten Iron'. The department by their show cause notice dated 11-9-1985 in E/1740/93-B1 to the appellants alleged that they were manufacturing excisable goods viz. molten iron falling under Tariff Item 25(i) of the erstwhile First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and demanded duty of Rs. 75,35,693.46 on the alleged contravention of Rule 173B (G) and F of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and clearances of molten iron said to have been removed without payment of duty for the manufacture of exempted Ingot Moulds and Bottom Stools. It is alleged that 'Molten Iron' is manufactured in Blast furnance and it is cleared without payment of Central Excise duty for steel making to their Steel Melting Shops and also to their Ingot Mould Foundry for the manufacture of Ingot Moulds...
Tag this Judgment!B.P. Srivastava Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT794TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 30-8-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Delhi. The appellant was posted as First Secretary in the Indian Embassy, Kathman-du. During his stay in Kathmandu he imported a Nissan Datsun Car - Model No. B 310 UGL. After using the car in Nepal for more than five years he brought it to India against a valid Customs Clearance Permit. Bill of Entry No. 010, dated 14-9-1987 was filed in Delhi Customs House for the clearance of the car. Along with the Bill of Entry, the appellant filed Invoice No.M/11993/2-B, dated 3-2-1982 issued by M/s. Nippon Trading Co. Ltd., Japan which indicated the FOB and CIF prices of the imported car as US $ 3,155.20 and US $ 4,013.65 respectively. The appellant had also obtained another invoice from the supplier bearing the same number and date in respect of the imported car which indicated the CIF price as Japanese Yen 1,010,000. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Delhi determined the assessable value of ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. M.R.F. Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT595TriDel
1. The issue in this appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras is the liability to duty of rubber scrap ob-tained by cutting defective tubes. The Collector (Appeals) had held that such scrap is not identifiable as goods although it may have some value in the market and therefore not classifiable under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.2. We have heard Shri M.K. Jain, SDR for the Collector. The respondent has requested decision on merits. Shri Jain reiterated the submission in the memorandum of appeal.3. The Delhi High Court in Modi Rubber case reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 502 had held that waste or scrap obtained in course of manufacture of tyres and tubes were not goods, there being no manufacture of waste/scrap. The ratio of this decision had been followed by this Tribunal in Dunlop India Ltd. reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 329 and in the respondent's own case in the Tribunal Order No.301/94-D,...
Tag this Judgment!N.J. International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT120TriDel
1. By the present application, the appellants have made a prayer for restoration of appeals. Shri K. Srinivasan, the learned consultant, has appeared on behalf of the appellants and reiterated the contentions made in the application. He pleaded that since Shri B.R. Thakker was having all the papers and the learned consultant Shri Srinivasan himself had a fall and had twisted his left ankle and was immobilised for nearly a month, the appellants had sought an adjournment on 28th of July, 1994 whereas the matter was listed on 26th July, 1994. He pleaded that it is a bona fide lapse on the part of the appellants and as such the appeals may be restored to their original numbers. Shri K.K. Jha, the learned SDR, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent does not object to the restoration of the appeals.2. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the record. In fact the dealing officer Shri B.R. Thakker expired on 1st May, 1994 and the learned consultant Shri Srinivasan had a fal...
Tag this Judgment!Taylor Instrument Co. (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC311Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from Order dt. 3MO-1990 passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi rejecting the refund claim filed by the appellant under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. It is the case of the appellant that they are manufacturers of Pneumatic and Electronic Industrial Process Control Instruments. The instruments are highly sophisticated and sensitive. Sometimes it happens that a customer to whom these goods are supplied do not take delivery by accepting the sale documents from the Bank. Therefore, the goods are returned to the factory in original packed condition under the provisions of Rule 173L, as such, goods would need to be sold to other customers only after proper refining and reconditioning etc. as required in the rule. It is submitted by the appellants that they had carried out such process of retesting, rechecking and recaliberation of the instruments before it is sold at a higher price after paying appropriate rate of duty. Therefore, they filed refund ap...
Tag this Judgment!Asco Industrial Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT125TriDel
1. The appeal by M/s. ASCO Industrial Corporation is against the order in Appeal No. 923 CE/DLH/90, dated 29-10-1990 passed by Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi rejecting the appeal preferred by them against the order in original No. 2/CE/89 passed by Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rohtak holding them to be ineligible for Modvat credit in respect of X-ray Films used by them for taking photographs of their welded products to see the quality of welding and for locating defects therein. It was observed by the Assistant Collector while coming to the said conclusion that the X-ray Films so used are part of the testing equipment and cannot be called inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product. While upholding the said order, the Collector (Appeals) observed that there is no doubt that radiographic examination is a must for testing any welding defect in the cylinders so as to ensure that they conform to strict standards prescribed. It was not also dis...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Vijaya Packaging Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT160TriDel
1. This is a department's appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Madras dated 9-2-1990.2. The learned DR stated that the respondents are manufacturers of 'printed cartons' etc. They had submitted a classification list 2/87 with effect from l-4-1987 claiming classification of their printed cartons under 4818.12 and claiming exemption under Notification No.140/86.3. The Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice as it was felt that they were classifiable under 4818.13 as 'others'.4. The Assistant Collector, however, after hearing the party dropped the demand and classified the product under 4818.12.5. This was not acceptable to the department and therefore, the appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals).6. The Collector (Appeals), however, confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector and rejected the appeal. Hence, this petition.7. It was their contention that 4818.12 covers only those printed cartons etc. which were made wholly out of paper or paper board of specif...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh Vs. Kharaiti Lal and Sons
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)746; 1995(32)DRJ309; 1995RLR318
D.K. Jain, J. (1) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, by the defendant in the suit, is directed against the order dated 03 September 1993 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby further opportunity was declined to the appellant to cross-examine PW-2 and further the time granted to him to lead his evidence was restricted to three days as against ten days time requested by him. (2) The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08 August 1978 for sale of a property in Green Park, New Delhi, which was resisted by the appellant; on which a number of issues were framed. The matter came to trial. During trial, it appears, that while plaintiff's Karta (Public Witness -2) was being cross-examined, certain questions by appellant were disallowed as being not relevant or inadmissible and repetitive; the question of proper stamping of documents was not forthwith decided; his application for amendment of issue No. 2/framing of additional ...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Abrar Hussain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT516
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This appeal is directed against judgment of acquittal dated 22/10/1986, of a Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The respondent was acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.(2) The undisputed facts of the case are that on 27/02/1985, at about 4.45p.m. the respondent was carrying certain milk cans in a vehicle from his village for selling the milk in Delhi, but on the way to Delhi the Food Inspector stopped his vehicle near Nizammuddin Bridge and had taken a sample of the milk from a can which bore no lable. In the receipt issued by the Food Inspector to the respondent for purchasing sample of the milk, the respondent had recorded that he had sold the sample of separate /(skimmed) milk. The analysis of the sample milk carried out by the Public Analyst indicated that the sample did not conform to the standard of buffalo milk although it did conform to the standard of skimmed milk.(3) A complaint w...
Tag this Judgment!