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.
More Water Pipes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT770TriDel
1. These five appeals arise from a single order in original passed by Collector of Central Excise, Meerut whereby he had imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rupees one lakh) on the appellants, M/s. More Water Pipes Limited and penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each on the other four appellants Under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962. In addition he directed that an amount of Rs. ten lakhs should be paid as the value of the contravening goods which were held to be liable to confiscation but which were not available for confiscation. He had also directed that the amount of Rs. 26,73,159.75 deposited by the first appellant be apportioned to Customs duty on the 245 M.T. of PVC Resins imported by them Under Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeals were heard together when Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, learned Consultant appeared for all the appellants and Shri Jangir Singh, Departmental Representative appeared for the respondent Collector. This common order disposes of all these five appe...
Medley Labs P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT696TriDel
1. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits. Hence we proceeded to hear the learned DR and considered the submissions contained in the appeal memorandum. The appellants herein are manufacturers of Fadomin tablets falling for classification under 3003.10. There is no dispute about the classification of the product and the only dispute in the present appeal is whether the abovementioned product is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 29/88, dated 1-3-1988. The benefit has been denied by the authorities below for the reason that it contains two ingredients out of which only one falls under the First Schedule to the Drugs (Prices) Control Order, 1987. The condition of the Notification is that the Patent or Proprietary Medicaments falling under Heading 3003 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 which are covered by the Notification should satisfy the condition set out in the table appended to the Notification which reads as under : - "All formulations based on ...
G.T.C. Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT737TriDel
1. M/s. G.T.C. Industries Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'GTC'), have filed the present application for rectification of mistake (ROM) with reference to Tribunal's Order No. 287 to 291/96 D dated 19-4-1996. The ROM application was received in the Registry on 4-7-1996. The Tribunal under their Final Order dated 19-4-1996 referred to above, after taking all the relevant considerations into account, had rejected the four appeals filed by the GTC and had accepted one appeal filed by the Revenue. The main grounds taken in the ROM application are that (1) the final order does not take into account most of the submissions of the appellants -GTC (2) the submissions have not been considered appeal-wise (3) the case law cited by the appellants had not been followed (4) on limitation, the submissions of the appellants with regard to the charge of wilful suppression had not been considered and (5) the provisions of Notification No. 201/79-C.E.had been mis-read.2. The ROM application was...
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT383TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.S/10-39/88-CC, dated 20-5-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs.2. The appellants filed a bill of entry for clearance of among others the following goods under Project Import against the Import Licence dated 27th June, 1985: (i) Uninterruptible Power Supply consisting of cells, accessories of cells, drip trays, battery stand, electrolyte etc. valuing Rs. 6,66,440/-C.I.F. (ii) Spare parts for the uninterruptible power supply system valuing Rs. 39,126/- C.I.F.3. The clearance for I.T.C. purposes of these goods was claimed against Item 80 of list attached to the licence. This reads as follows : "Distributed micro-processor based programmable instrumentation including field and panel mounted instruments, controls/interlocks, control/compensation cables with centralised supervisory master control system including annunciation, data-logging, trend recording and report generation for control of process parameters like level, speed...
Chamundi Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT235TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Chamundi Machine Tools Limited (A Government of Karnataka Undertaking), Mysore being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras Order No. 124/87(B)(D), dated 30-9-1987.2. The matter relates to the classification of the products gears, shafts, pulleys, couplings, claw clutches, pinions, bearing and housing. The appellants had classified these products under Heading No.84.66 which covers the following :- "parts and accessories suitable for housing solely or principally with the machines of Headings No. 84.56 to 84.65, including work or tool holders, self opening die- heads, dividing heads and other special attachments for machine and tool holders for any type of tool for working in the hand".The department had classified these products under Heading No. 84.83 which covers the following :- "transmission shafts (including cam shafts and crank shafts) and cranks, bearing housing and plain shafts bearings...
Finolex Coil Cord (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT664TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Finolex Coil Cord (P) Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the product coil cords, plug wire/cords, straight/line/connection/rosettee cord and gemini cord. The appellants classified their products under Heading No. 85.48 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff); the Assistant Collector, Pune classified these products under Heading No. 85.44 and the appellants admitted the classification under protest. Subsequently they filed an appeal with the Collector (Appeals), Bombay who held that the products under reference merited classification under Heading 85.44 of the Tariff.2. Shri Dinesh Kumar, Company Representative appearing for the appellants referred to their ground of appeal and reiterated the submissions made before the Collector (Appeals).3. In reply Shri M. Jayaraman, ld. JDR stated that the goods in question are not in electrical goods and they are type of cable and they are correct...
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT469TriDel
1. M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. have filed the captioned appeal being aggrieved by the order of the ld. Collector (Appeals). The ld.Collector (Appeals) in his order-in-appeal dated 29-4-1992 had held: "I have considered the submissions of appellants contained in the memorandum of appeal and also during the course of personal hearing. The main point that has been taken up by the appellants is that the processing loss was admissible in terms of Notification No. 40/87 which ground has been contested by the adjudicating authority. So far as the question of processing loss is concerned, on a very strict reading of the Notification there is nothing in it to indicate that processing loss is allowable. I, therefore, uphold the Asstt. Collector's order and reject the appeal." 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various goods including soap and are availing credit of money on oils both rice bran oil and minor oil specified under Notification No. 40/8...
Deekay Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT468TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Deekay Industries and M/s.Deekay Clutch (P) Ltd. The matter relates to the classification of clutches. The appellants had sought the classification of their products as parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the specified machines under Heading No. 84.66 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, while the Revenue had classified the products under Heading No. 84.83 of the Tariff. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bombay who had adjudicated the matter had observed that as clutches and shaft couplings including universal joints are specifically covered by Heading No. 84.83, by virtue of the Section Note 2 of Section 16 of the Tariff all types of clutches are correctly classified under that Heading No. 84.83. This order of the Assistant Collector had been confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.2. The matter came up for hearing on 15-10-1996. The appellants have prayed for decision on merit...
Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT639TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of Order-in-Appeal dated 17-5-1989 by which the Collector rejected the appellants refund claim. The appellants had imported shuttles for textile machinery and same were classified under Chapter sub-heading 8448.41 of Customs Act. They filed refund claim in time seeking the benefit of Chapter 89. However, in the refund claim they mentioned Notification 132 of 1987, dated 19-3-1987 which grants concessional rate of customs duty. The Asstt. Collector rejected that claim on the ground that the notification does not lay down any rate of duty but notified the goods having general application. He further noted that as no specific notification is mentioned, therefore, claim is not tenable. Collector (Appeals) has observed that only those goods/parts which have been classified under Heading 9806 are to be granted partial exemption and as the shuttles have been classified under Chapter Heading 8448 and there is no challenge to this classification at any" stage. Therefo...
Swastik Castings P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT382TriDel
1. The department disallowed the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 9815 availed of by the appellants on the basis of original copies of invoices under Rule 57-1 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant filed the appeal and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi dismissed the appeal. The appellants took credit on the basis of original copy of invoice. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the duplicate/transporters copy of the invoice was lost. He further submitted that they have produced the octori receipt and copies of receipts of transporter who transported the goods before the adjudicating authority. He further submitted that the Trade Notice No. 39/94-C.E. of Central Excise Collectorate, Jaipur provides that a manufacturer can take credit of the inputs received in the factory on the basis of original copy if the duplicate copy has been lost in transit subject to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector if the manufacturer would produce or...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »