Delhi Court December 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. Saket Steels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT420TriDel
1. Respondents, engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products, had availed of Modvat facility in respect of certain inputs used by them in the manufacture of their final product. Such inputs included CI Skull scrap. Objection was taken by the departmental authorities that the declaration filed by them under Rule 57G does not specifically cover CI Skull scrap as what had been declared by them was scrap only.Another objection was also taken that the challans issued by SAIL had been endorsed twice which was against the requirement laid down by the Collectorate Trade Notice restricting such endorsement to only one challan. The Assistant Collector confirmed the duty demand after disallowing the Modvat credit. This order on challenge by the respondents was set aside by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh leading to the present appeal.2. Shri Y.R. Kilania, learned DR while supporting the order passed by the Assistant Collector submitted that specific description filed under R...
Logwell Forge Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT384TriDel
1. The sole issue for determination in the above appeal which arises out of the order dated 31-7-1989 passed by the Principal Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi is the correct classification of "pieces roughly shaped by forging of steel" manufactured and cleared by the appellants herein during the period 1-3-1986 to 21-7-1987. Appellants claim classification under Heading 72.08 while the Department has confirmed classification under Heading 73.08 as "other articles of iron or steel".2. We have heard Shri R.C. Gupta, learned Counsel and Shri Mohamed Ali, learned DR.3. The process of manufacture adopted by the appellants is briefly as under: The appellants purchased raw materials i.e. duty [paid] steel bars and rods and cut the same to required weight and sizes and thereafter heat them in furnaces at a temperature of approximately 1050. The hot pieces are thereafter put in the dies and hammering operation is done with the help of a hammer to get the required shape and sizes. Extra m...
Gurdip Singh Uban and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)100; 65(1997)DLT222; 1997RLR39
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The petitioners Gurdip Singh, Mrs. Har Sharan Mishra and Mrs. Har Kiran have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on. 23-4-1986, praying that the notifications for acquisition issued for planned development of Delhi under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), being dated 25-11-1980 and 7-6-1985 respectively, in relation to the land of the petitioners in village Chhatarpur in the Union Territory of Delhi, be quashed. (2) The petitioners asserted that they are the owners and in possession of land in khasra No. 70411, 706j2, 70611, 706,3, 70712, 714, 71512, 90912, 1012 and 693, all situated in the revenge estate of village, Chhatarpur in the Union Territory of Delhi. It was also asserted that the aforesaid lands are allotted to Major General Sujan Singh Uban in lieu of agriculture lands left behind in. West Pakistan. It was further asserted that this land was allotted to Major General Sujan Singh U...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shanti Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT533TriDel
1. The respondents had taken Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules to the extent of Rs. 12,395/- in respect of the specified duty paid on voltage stabilizers and voltage regulators claiming them to be capital goods. This was objected to by the department and show cause notice was issued which was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Udaipur. On appeal by them, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, agreeing with their claim that these items are components of textile plant and machinery and that without the use of the stabilizer yarn cannot be produced. The present appeal challenges this finding.2. There is no one present on behalf of the respondents when the appeal came up for hearing. No communication has also been received from them.The appeal is disposed of after hearing Shri Y.R. Kilania, learned DR.3. The thrust of the submissions made by the learned DR is that the items in question ar...
Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Magnavision Video Projection
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT335TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the classification of the product known as 'Magnavision Projection System' (MVP System) under the old Central Excise Tariff as in force prior to 28-2-1986 is involved.The respondents M/s. Magnavision Video Projection System had classified their product under Item No. 68 of the CET while the Revenue had sought to classify the same under Item No. 33A of the Tariff.2.The matter was posted for hearing on 16-12-1996. For the appellant Revenue, Shri P.K. Jain, SDR stated that tariff description under Item No. 39A of the old Central Excise Tariff was wide enough to include the projection video system. In this connection, he referred to the statement of facts and the grounds for filing the appeal. The notice to the respondents had come back with the remarks "left without address".3. We have carefully considered the matter. The adjudicating authority after referring to the catalogue of the product had observed that the magnavision projection system consi...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT184TriDel
1. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned had held that it has been expressly mentioned in proviso to Rule 57F(3) that credit of specified duty in respect of inputs used in the final products cleared for export under bond or used in the intermediate products cleared for export in accordance with Sub-rule (2) shall be allowed to be utilised towards payment of duty of excise on similar final products cleared for home consumption on payment of duty. There is neither any exceptions incorporated in the said proviso nor any such exemption can be imported into it and therefore, he allowed the appeal on this count. The ld.Collector (Appeals) also held that Modvat credit on phosphoric acid used for purification is an input and therefore, is eligible for Modvat credit. On the question of caustic soda Lye the ld. Collector (Appeals) held that the appellants did not produce any documentary evidence of payment of duty and therefore, the credit of duty on caustic soda lye has rightly been denied. ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pure Drinks (Cal.) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT393TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the only issue for our consideration is the classification of the product 'ice boxes'. The respondent M/s. Pure Drinks (Cal.) Ltd., Calcutta had classified their product under sub-heading No. 8312.19; the Revenue in this appeal filed against the order of the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) had sought to classify the product u/s.h. No. 8312.90 of the new Central Excise Tariff. The matter was posted for hearing on 16-12-1996. For the appellant Revenue, Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR is present. No one is present for the respondent M/s. Pure Drinks (Cal.) Ltd., Calcutta. Notice for today's hearing had already been served on them and there is no response from them; there is no request for adjournment, and as this is an old matter, in which the show cause notice was issued as early as in the year 1987, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR who is present for the appellant/Revenue.2. Shri M. Jayaraman, JD...
Kumtron Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT642TriDel
1. In this stay application filed by M/s. Kumtron Ltd., it has been prayed that pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 2,32,645/-, Rs. 1,700/- and the penalty amount of Rs. 50,000/- be waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal.2. The matter relates to the use of brand name 'Hilltron' by the appellant M/s. Kumtron Ltd., both were U.P. State Govt. Undertakings and were engaged in the manufacture of electronic goods. Initially M/s.Kumtron cleared radio cassette recorder (RCR) under their own brand name and as they could not market their product successfully, the brand name 'hilltron' which was already for the black and white television sets manufactured by M/s. Hilltron, an another U.P. State Govt.Undertaking, was used. The deptt. had taken a view that as the brand name 'hilltron' did not belong to the appellants, they were not eligible for the small scale exemption.2a. The matter was heard on 16-12-1996 when Shri M. Ganesan, Advocate with Shri T. Ganesan, Advocate appear...
National Dairy Development Board Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT73TriDel
1. The issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the benefit of Notification No. 125/86 at SI. No. 25 thereof, which covers "filling for thermo formed trays and top sealing machines" is available to the Gasti filling and aluminium lid sealing machine for thermo formed cups imported by the appellants herein, and assessed under Heading 8422.30 of the CTA, 1975 which covers machinery for filling, closing, sealing, capsuling or labelling, bottles, cans, boxes, bags or other containers, machinery for aerating beverages.2. The contention of Shri A.K. Patnaik, learned Counsel for the appellants is that since the imported machine was a top sealing machine, it was eligible to the benefit of the notification as top sealing machine whether for cups or trays, came within the scope of the relevants entry therein.3. We are unable to accept this argument as in our opinion SI. No. 25 of the Notification covers only machines for filling and top sealing of thermo formed brays. Machines for filling ...
Lotus International Vs. Chaturbhujadas Karnani Textiles (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)446; 2(1997)CLT256; 65(1997)DLT300; 1997(40)DRJ385
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) ADMIT. (2) The defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants in this appeal and the plaintiff company is the respondent. This Fao has been filed against the order dated 23.8.1995 passed in I.A. 8411 of 1995 (wrongly shown as is 8495/95 in the impugned order) in Suit No.2575 of 1987 by which the learned Single Judge refused to grant permission to the appellants to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and also for adducing evidence on the appellants' side in view of the fact that the appellants had been set ex-parte on 6.7.1994. The point that arises in the appeal is whether in a case where the defendants are set ex-parte after having filed their written statement, the defendants could be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and also adduce evidence on their side. (3) The respondent company filed the suit for recovery oof Rs. 11,67,397.79 against the appellants on account of alleged supply of goods during July to September,1986. The 1st appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »