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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. J.S. Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT944TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-1-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The respondents are M/s. J.S. Enterprises.The matter relates to the classification of sections made of aluminium for use in the manufacture of aluminium doors and windows. The respondents had classified these products under sub-heading No. 7613.90 while the Revenue had sought to classify these goods under sub-heading 8302.90 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 (hereinafter refers to as the Tariff). The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) relied upon the Ministry's clarification under instructions in F.No. 139/35/87-CX IV, dated 7-8-1987 and had held that the goods under consideration were rightly classifiable under sub-heading No. 7613.90 of the Tariff as other articles of aluminium.2. We have heard Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR for the Revenue appellant and Shri S. Murlidhar, ld. Counsel for the respondents M/s. J.S.Enterprises.3. S...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Meera Metal Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT217TriDel
1. This Revenue appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 16-2-1987 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Notification No. 234/82 exempts Utensils made of Aluminium from payment of Central Excise duty under Serial No. 38 of Table appended to the Notification. The respondents manufacture Non-stick Cookwares.These utensils are made of aluminium and are coated with a layer of poly tetra fluoro ethylene PIFE to make them Non-stick Utensils. The exemption as utensils made from the aluminium was denied to them on the ground that these are coated with PIFE. The Collector (Appeals), however, held that merely because these are coated with PIFE these utensils did not cease to be utensils made of aluminium and therefore, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. The Revenue are in appeal against this order.3. Arguing for the Revenue the Learned DR submits that coating entirely changes the character of the utensils and these utensils cannot be considered as made out...
Everest Tubes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT368TriDel
1. When the matter was called Shri K. Raman, clerk of Shri K.K. Anand, advocate submitted a letter dated 20-11-1996 stating that it is on record that the appellants have made a debit entry in RG 23C Part II for Rs. 50,000/- which they were asked to pre-deposit by the Stay order. On examination of Rule 57-S, we find that the credit allowed in respect of capital goods can be utilised for the purposes mentioned in that rule. However, Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57-S stipulates "(3) no part of the credit of duty allowed shall be utilised save as provided in sub rule (2) or shall be refunded in cash or by cheque. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57-S provides that credit of specific duty allowed in respect of any capital goods may be utilised towards payment of duty of excise on any of the final products manufactured, or on the waste, if any, or on the capital goods themselves. In the instant case, we find that it is a pre-deposit of duty and penalty and therefore, does not fall under any of the requirement ...
C.C.E. Vs. Himachal Terpene Products Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT327TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed by the Department w.r.t. the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh dated 4-4-1991.2. A notice for todays hearing has been issued to the respondents.However, neither any appearance has been caused nor there is any other communication requesting for adjournment or otherwise on record before us. In the circumstances, we have perused the records and heard the ld.DR.3. Ld. DR states that the appellants are manufacturing terpeneol. They had claimed in their Classification List No. 1/88-89 w.e.f. 1-4-1988 that the product was classifiable under 2906.90 as bulk drugs. This classification list was approved by the A.C. on 20-4-1988. However, the assessee filed the revised classification list under cover of letter dated 27-4-1988 claiming classification under 3003.30 effective from the same date.4. The A.C. informed them that the classification of the said goods had already been approved for the relevant period under 2...
Delhi Steel Rolling Mills Vs. New India Metal Traders Madarsa Sadat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT997
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) Have heard the arguments of Mr. P.C. Khanna, Sr. Advocate for the defendants for a considerable length of time when he attempted to expound the law of Sale of Goods. The plaintiff had agreed to sell the machineries under certain circumstances to the defendants vide agreement dated 3.7.1996. The defendants came forward to purchase the machinery and is aware of the conditions referred to in the agreement. The total consideration mentioned in the agreement is Rs. 2,80,00,000.00 . Defendants were permitted to dismantle and lift the entire machineries. Apparently at the time of entering into the agreement, the defendants were not able to pay the full consideration and he would not be able to remove the entire machineries as per the agreement and, thereforee, it was agreed that as and when the defendants paid some amount proportionately the defendants were entitled to remove the machineries worth the amount paid by them. Clause 15 in this behalf is relevant and reads a...
Adarsh Metal Indus. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT203TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Adarsh Metal Indus, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Adarsh') being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 22-1-1987, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The Appeal No. E/620/87-B1 was filed in time on 11-3-1987. As the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had disposed of two appeals by his common order dated 22-1-1987, M/s. Adarsh were required to file two separate appeals in the matter. They filed a supplementary appeal which was received in the Registry on 7-8-1996.Along with the supplementary appeal, an application for condonation of delay (COD) was also filed. As the main appeal was filed in time, after hearing Shri R. Sudhinder, Advocate, for the appellants, and Shri P.K.Jain, SDR, for the respondents/Revenue, we condone the delay in filing the supplementary appeal.2. As both the appeals arise out of a common order-in-appeal, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. The m...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kooverji De
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT796TriDel
1. This Revenue Appeal is directed against Order No. N-164/B196/85, dated 10-6-1985 of Collector (Appeals).2. Collector (Appeals) has held that the appellants do not have any equipment for manufacture or assembling fire extinguishers and they cannot be held manufacturers of the said goods.3. Arguing for the Revenue, the Ld. D.R. submits that the respondents import cylinders and send these metal cylinders to M/s. Fire Hose & Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd. for getting syphone tubes and valves fitted.After that these are received back and the respondents send them to M/s. Carbon Di-oxide Corporation and to M/s. Sardar Carbonic Gas Co.for filling up Carbon Di-oxide Gas. These gas filled cylinders were again sent to M/s. Fire Hose & Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd. for fixing Hose and Horn, painting and labelling them. Thereafter the respondents received back the cylinders. In view of this, the respondents have to be held as the manufacturers.4. Arguing for the respondents, the Ld. Advocate subm...
Jay Engineering Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT595TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Jay Engg. Co., Ahmedabad, the matter relates to the classification of display cabinets under Notification No. 252/83-C.E., dated 1-10-1983 and Notification No. 42/84-C.E., dated 1-4-1984. In these exemption notifications, among others, deep freezers were exempted from part of the central excise duty otherwise leviable.The exemption notification specifically mentions 'Deep Freezers'. The appellants had pleaded that the display cabinets manufactured by them were covered by the description 'Deep Freezers' for the purposes of exemption Notification No. 252/83-C.E. and 42/84-C.E. aforesaid. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, who adjudicated the matter had held that the appellants were not entitled to the concessional rate of duty available under aforesaid notifications in respect of display cabinets. This order of the Addl. Collector was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The matter was posted for hearing on 19-...
Cimmco Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT304TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 879/89-BCH, dated 19-5-1989 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay.2. The short question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether Flow Meter accessories are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 155/86-Cus. The Appellants have contended that flow meters are parts of coal dust flow i.e. Mass Measuring System of Cement Plant and therefore would merit assessment under Chapter 84.74 and therefore would be eligible to exemption under Notification No. 155/86 as this tariff item is mentioned in the notification. The department, however, has held that this meter as classifiable under Heading 90.31 and rejected their claim since the Notification No. 155/86-Cus.includes only certain items falling under Chapter 84 and 85.3. Arguing for the appellants the ld. Counsel reiterates the claim made in the appeal but on a specific question from the Bench fairly concedes the department's point of view.5. We do not see much me...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shiv Shakti Tube Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT547TriDel
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether original invoices issued during the period 20-4-1994 to 4-5-1994 were valid documents for the purpose of taking Modvat credit. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) in his order dated 17-7-1996 modified the order of the Additional Collector to the extent that the credit of Rs. 65,400/- in respect of Invoice Nos. 26, 28 and 121, dated 20-4-1994, 21-4-1994 and 4-5-1994 is allowed.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel tubes and pipes. They are availing facility of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules; that during the course of checking of the RT 12 returns relating to April and May, 1994 the departmental officers found that the respondents had taken credit amounting to Rs. 2,16,406.00 on the basis of 11 original copies of invoices issued under Rule 52A; that the department alleged that this credit was wrongly taken and therefore issued...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »