Delhi Court October 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Aims Oxygen Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT510TriDel
1. This is a departmental appeal filed under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the Act). The copy of the impugned order produced in unreadable and D.R. was required on earlier occasion to produce readable copy, but that has not been produced. D.R. prays for time. Meanwhile, the respondent had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the authorisation granted by the Collector of Central Excise for filing the present appeal is not proper. We have heard both sides on the preliminary objection. "I, hereby authorise the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, Headquarters, Vadodara under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to file appeal to the Appellate Tribunal on behalf of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara, in the matter decided by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Bombay vide his Order No. M-191/BRD-116/86, dated 14-3-1986 in respect of M/s. AIMS Oxygen Pvt. Ltd.,...
Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT355TriDel
1. Appellant in Appeal No. E/313/831 is M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd.(B.A.L.).Appellants in the other appeals are M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra (M.A.M.).2. BAL manufacture two-wheelers and three-wheelers falling under Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They buy hand tools meant for tool kits supplied along with scooters cleared from the factory on payment of duty. They also buy and use steel articles, Argon gas, Thinners and solutions, Fevicol, Caustic Soda, packing materials and various kinds of chemicals. Assistant Collector disallowed Modvat credit under Section AA of Chapter V of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, the Rules) in respect of hand tools, Argon gas, packing materials, caustic soda and steel articles. Collector (Appeals) allowed Modvat credit in respect of Argon gas, steel articles, packing articles and caustic soda used for deionization but confirmed disallowance of Modvat credit in respect of Hand Tools. BAL have therefore filed Appeal [E/313/93]. M.A.M. manufac...
inductotherm (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT118TriDel
1. These appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.52/88-Ahmd., dated 8-7-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The appellants had imported 4 consignments claimed to be Inverter, Control Board/Card and Dual Firing Modules. They claimed these to be components for the manufacture of induction furnaces. These goods were classified under CTH 8518/27(1) CTA 75. The appellants claimed after subsequent clearance classification under Heading 85.11(1) CTA 75 on the ground that the impugned goods were parts of induction furnaces.The claims were rejected. Collector (Appeals) also rejected the claim holding in addition, in regard to alternative plea regarding classification under 8518/27(1) that the appellants had not produced any evidence that the impugned goods were designed for use in circuits of 400 volts or more.3. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Consultant submits that these goods are designed for use only with induction melting furnaces. He draws our attention to...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kishor Pumps Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT91TriDel
1. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the order passed by Assistant Collector, Pune, dropping certain demands under four show cause notices.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of Power-driven pumps (T.I.30A) and Agitators (T.I. 68) has been purchasing electric motors. The dispute in the appeal relates to the period 1-4-1981 to 31-12-1983 and 1-4-1984 to 3-6-1984. During these periods, respondent was clearing Agitators along with electric motors, on payment of excise duty on the value of Agitators and clearing PD Pumps alongwith Electric Motors on payment of excise duty on the value of PD Pumps. Value of Electric Motors was not being included in the assessable value of Agitators and PD Pumps. Electric Motors were supplied along with Agitators or PD Pumps only at the request of buyers. Respondent was also clearing Agitators and PD Pumps without Electric Motors in cases where buyers did no...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. R.K. Marbles Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT276TriDel
1. The captioned two appeals are being disposed of by this common order inasmuch as the issue involved for determination in both the appeals is the same. The issue is whether gantry crane, transformers and trolly are capital goods and are eligible for inputs duty credit under the Modvat scheme. The Department alleged that these items are used for moving the raw materials from one place to the other and do not participate in the process of manufacture and therefore since items did not participate in the process of manufacture therefore they were not eligible to Modvat credit. However Commissioner (Appeals) held that gantry crane and transformers in the case of R.K. Marbles Ltd. are capital goods and were eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit and in the case of Patwari Marbles Pvt. Ltd. the items are gantry crane, trolly and transformers. In this case also the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed a relief by holding that gantry crane and transformers were capital goods for the purpose of ...
Southern Petrochemical Ind. Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC176Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants imported Worm Wheels under Bill of Entry dated 29-4-1988 through Madras Port for their machinery at Tuticorin. The impugned goods were classified under CTH 8483.90. The appellants claimed classification under CTH 9806.00 and benefit of assessment under Notification No. 69/87-Cus. The claim was rejected by Assistant Collector. Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld the order of Asstt.Collector. The appellants have now come in appeal before the Tribunal.2. None appeared on behalf of the appellants when the matter was called. The appellants have, however, requested for decision on merits.3. The appellants claimed that Notification No. 69/87 should be read harmoniously with Notification No. 132/87-Cus. Notification No.69/87-Cus. was issued on 1-3-1987 and Notification No. 132/87-Cus. on 19-3-1987 without amending the earlier Notification No. 69/87. The intention of the Govt. was only to exclude parts of machinery falling under CTH 8483.20 and 8483.30 from Chapter 98 and n...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. El. P. Em. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT604TriDel
1. These are six appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with two separate Orders-in-Appeal - one Order-in-Appeal No. 116 & 117/87 (CBE), dated 9-6-1987 involving two appeals filed by M/s. El. P. EM.Industries, Coimbatore and M/s. Geedee Stoll Pvt. Ltd. Coimbatore, and the other, Order-in-Appeal No. 126 to 129/87 (CBE), dated 22-06-1987 involving four appeals filed by four manufacturers M/s. Dual Engineering Industries, M/s. Subbaia Foundry and M/s. Karthikeya Foundry, M/s. Karthikeya Engg. Enterprises, all of Coimbatore. The Revenue had filed the original appeal in time but as required under the rules they had also filed supplementary appeals, which were received beyond the period of limitation. As the original appeal has been filed in time, we condone the delay in filing the supplementary appeals and take up all the six appeals for hearing together. As in all these six appeals common questions of facts and law are involved they were heard together and are being disposed of ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Walia Engg. Associates Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT324TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification and eligibility for exemption of Coal Fired Boiler.Under Exemption Notification No. 120/81-C.E., dated 15-5-1981 (as amended), among others, Agricultural and Municipal Waste Conversion Devices Producing Energy, falling under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, were exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. The appellants described their goods as "Enpak Energy Coal Fired Boiler IBR" and paid appropriate excise duty as leviable under Tariff Item 68 of the Tariff. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim on the ground that the goods manufactured by them were Agricultural and Municipal Waste Conversion Device Producing Energy and were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 120/81-C.E.aforesaid. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad on the ground that the Boiler in question was specially designed for operating on coa...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Saraswati Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT543TriDel
1. This is a department's appeal filed w.r.t. the Order-in-Appeal No.69/90 (M)(D) dated 17-8-1990.2. The respondents have sent written submissions in which they have mentioned inter alia that they have preferred an appeal against the same impugned order on the question of eligibility for refund before SRB which has also ordered it to be transferred to Delhi to be taken up with this appeal. The registry has not been able to locate and list the said appeal so far. In the circumstances, we have considered whether the present appeal could be considered by itself independently of the other matter or not; And in view of what follows, we consider that it is possible to do so.3. Hence, we have heard the ld. DR who reiterated the department's viewpoint as contained in the grounds of appeal emphasising that the only issue in this appeal relates to classification of the respondent's product described as rubber solution. The department's contention is that it was classifiable under sub-heading 40...
P.N. Khanna Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD1(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dt. 3rd Sept., 1990, passed by the CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi.2. The only grievance of the assessee is against the disallowance of Rs. 2,000 on account of fire fighting charges under s. 24(1)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee has 1/5th share in the property No. 304, Ansal Bhawan, New Delhi. On 29th June, 1987, there was a fire in the said property. The building was sealed. By a letter dt. 3rd Aug., 1987, the Estate Manager, Ansal Bhawan, called upon the assessee to pay his contribution of Rs. 2,000 for providing fire fighting and safety works facility in the building as notified by the Chief Fire Officer, Delhi, in pursuance of Delhi Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 1986. The total expenditure for providing the safety measures to be incurred was Rs. 26,075 out of which Rs. 10,000 was to be borne by the five occupiers and the remaining expenditure was to be borne by the owner of the entire building. The assessee's 1/5th ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »