Delhi Court November 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.
Khoday Brewing and Distilling Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT336TriDel
1. In this appeal the appellants are aggrieved with the order dated 29-4-1988 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras. The appellants had imported 1 No. Fully Automatic Labelling Machine Type JOWE-9/III and additional devices (especially made for special shaped bottles) and the same were assessed under Heading 84.19 of CTA. The benefit of Notification No. 47/89 was extended only to the Fully Automatic Labelling Machine and the said benefit was not extended to the Additional Device imported along with Labelling Machine. Hence, the importer filed refund claim seeking the benefit of the said Notification to One adjustable label magazine, 8 additional label magazines, 6 additional Glue Cylinder which according to the importers are part and parcel of the main machine, as they are not additional devices with machine and performing the same function as the main machine. However, by a criptic order the Assistant Collector rejected the same on the ground that the Notification covers only mai...
Allu Graphic Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT432TriDel
1. The appellants imported an Offset Printing Machine supplied by M/s.Kovo Foreign Trade Corporation, Praha, Czechoslovakia for C.I.F. value of Rs. 10,80,000/-. In the relevant columns in the Bill of Entry, the fact of payment of agency commission was not shown. Subsequently, the Customs established that M/s J. Mahabeer & Company Private Ltd. were the indenting local agents of the foreign suppliers and were collecting commission on each machine shipped by the suppliers. It was established that the appellants had agreed to pay Rs. 1,08,000/- to M/s. J.Mahabeer & Company Private Ltd. as commission. After issue of show cause notice and after considering submissions made before him, the Collector in his impugned order held that the commission paid by the importers was includi-able in the assessable value. He observed that under the contract with the foreign suppliers, the local indenting agents were authorised to receive com' mission equal to 25% and even if in some cases they had...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mcnally Bharat Engg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT562TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-8-1987, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, the matter relates to the classification of (1) Thrust roller bearing disc and (2) Rail for Mini Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV). The respondent M/s. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd., Bangalore had classified their products as other articles of iron and steel, under sub-heading No. 7308.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, t 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tariff'), while the Revenue had sought to classify the same under sub-heading No.8483.00 of the Tariff on the ground that the said goods were specifically described in the Tariff under the said sub-heading No.8483.00 of the Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras upheld the claim of the respondents (appellants before him) for classification of both the products under sub-heading No. 7308.90 of the Tariff.2. The respondents have filed w...
Marvel Vinyls Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT361TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 24-4-1996.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PVC Sheeting and Flooring falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.3. In the course of manufacture of these items they are required to use "Green dot variable Transformer Type" and "Statics Convertor Panel".The former is used for regulating input of A.C. Voltage which in turn controls the speed of the machine. Such control is essential because without it the machine may perform at different speeds which may effect the quality or even characteristics of the final product; And the Statics Convertor Panel is used for thyristorised speed control and protection of D.C. Motors driving the calendering line and each function is monitored/controlled by the said panel and without it, it is impossible to run the calendering machine.4. The A.C. has not questioned these facts but has denied the benefit of Modvat ...
Chanderpur Board Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT701TriDel
1. By the present application, the appellant has submitted that the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kamani Foods v. CCE, Patna reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 202 had held that full exemption to a manufacturer for certain specified goods is not available if he chooses to avail modvat credit for certain specified goods manufactured by him.It has been submitted that in Final Order No. A/212/96-NB, dated 19-1-1996 in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Chanderpur Board Mills, the Tribunal had held that the respondents cannot avail full exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for one product and availed modvat credit for another. It has been submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in its Final Order No. A/1696/96-NB, dated 2-7-1996 holds that there was nothing wrong in availing exemption under Notification No. 175/86 and pay duty in respect of other item under the modvat scheme. It has been submitted that an error apparent has crept in the Tribunal's order and therefore, the same ...
Texmaco Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT463TriDel
1. This appeal arise from Order dated 29-9-1989, passed by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta. By this order, the Collector has confirmed the lower authorities rejection of importers' claim for registration of contract under Project Import Regulations, 1986 as the goods did not fall under Heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The original authorities have also held that the Bill of Entry No. DI-512, dated 14-8-1987 and DI-86, dated 4-8-1987 filed by the importer for the clearance of these goods be assessed finally on merit and in view of the terms as directed the importer to pay difference of duty amounting to Rs. 14,15,537.49.2. The appellants imported "Wheel sets" for railway wagon, which were required by Godavari Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. Secundarabad in setting up of their fertilizers plant at Kakinada. Since the big vessels cannot sail to Kakinada port they were diverted to Vishakapatnam, where Godavari Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., have a storage facility for the ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. D.D. Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT514TriDel
1. The department has filed the captioned appeal being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector holding that a particular portion of the scrap was irretrievable in the process of manufacture of forged goods in this case motor vehicle parts.2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts. The department collected information that the appellants had not been paying Central Excise duty on scrap of iron and steel generated in the process of forging, rough turning, grinding etc. in the units of job workers in respect of the inputs on which a credit of duty had been allowed under Rule 57A and that the appellants had not been accounting for such waste/scrap. On a visit to the factory premises of the appellants Central Excise officers observed that the appellants had been sending the steel and forgings in respect of which a credit of Central Excise duty was availed under Rule 57A to various job workers/processers under Rule 57...
Mohan Exports (i)(P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD473(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1988-89 is directed against order of CWT(Appeals) upholding assessment of a building in the hands of the assessee under sections 40 of WT Act.2. The facts of the case are the assessee was given on lease a plot of land at 8 & 9, Zamrudpur Community Centre, New Delhi on which it constructed a building. The building has been given on rent. The value of above building was claimed to be not includible in the wealth as DDA had not executed any lease deed in favour of the assessee. The assessee claimed to be a licencee and contended that section 40 of Finance Act, 1983 was not applicable in his case. The assessee also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawab Sir Mir Usman Ali Khan v. CWT [1986] 162 ITR 888/28 Taxman 641 wherein it was held that for purposes of charging to wealth tax, the asset must 'belong to the assessee'. The Assessing Officer rejected this contention and brought the building to charge under t...
Manohar Lal Vs. Richhpal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)62; 65(1997)DLT628; 1997(41)DRJ163
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) LA. NO. 94/88. This is an application under Order I Rule 10(2) Civil Procedure Code filed by Shri Sanjiv Kumar, through his mother and next friend Smt. Manohar Devi, praying for impleading him as a party to the suit being a coparcener to the Hindu Undivided Family property and on the basis of the principle 'every coparcener is entitled to a share upon partition'. (2) The applicant is the son of the defendant No. 2, Shri Babu Lal, who appeared in the suit and contested the same all throughout. According to the applicant, since the suit property is a coparcenery property, every coparcener is entitled to a share on partition and, thereforee, the applicant being one of such coparceners, he is required to be imp leaded as one of the parties in the suit. (3) Counsel appearing for the applicant stated that the applicant being admittedly one of the coparceners is entitled to safeguard his interest and should be allowed to be joined in the present proceedings. His further sub...
K.K. Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT635TriDel
1. These three appeals arise out of the same order-in-original and are, therefore, being taken together for disposal.2. The three appellants had imported polyester [filament] texturised yarn under cover of advance licences and claimed their clearance without payment of duty. Since some documents were incomplete, the goods were permitted to be temporarily bonded. The licences were issued in March, 1985 and bills of entry for the clearance of the goods were filed in November, 1986. Pursuant to the investigations launched by the Customs authorities, the advance licences were suspended by the licensing authority in July, 1987 and were latter cancelled in February, 1988. Show cause notice dated 6-1-1988 was issued to the appellants alleging that the goods were liable to confiscation and that the importers were liable to penalty. After hearing the importers, the Additional Commissioner in his order dated 31-10-1990, confiscated the goods imported under three bills of entry, prescribed fines...