Delhi Court February 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.
Technical Associates Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT347TriDel
1. By the present appeal, the appellants have contested that this disallowance of modvat credit amounting to Rs. 26,138.75 in respect of CRGO Steel coils and further disallowance of duty amounting to Rs. 9,365.25 was wrong. The Department has disallowed the modvat credit on CRGO Steel coils on the ground that no records were maintained so as to correlate the items imported with the items sent to the job workers for conversion into CRGO steel coils. The deemed modvat credit on M.S.Plates has been denied by the Department on the ground that the goods have been described as M.S. Plates in the challans covering the goods whereas deemed modvat credit is available only on sheets of less than 5 mm. thickness. The lower authorities also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 12,000/- on the appellants.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of transformers. They imported CRGO steel coils and paid the import duty thereon. They sent the CRGO steel c...
Lt. Col. Harinder Singh Bedi Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT206TriDel
1. The appellant having purchased one Audi 80 CD, 1588 cc 1985 model car from the manufacturer M/s. Volkswagen, West Germany, imported it into India. The car contained an air-conditioner, a cassette player and a few spare parts. The appellant declared that he had paid. DM 17891.01 for the car, DM 2056.14 for the air-conditioner and DM 697.37 for the cassette player. He had purchased the car when he was working in Luxembourg. He arrived at the total value of DM 22707.89 after including registration charges, insurance charges and transportation charges from West Germany to Luxembourg. The appellant did not produce the manufacturer's invoice as he was not in custody of the same. The Assistant Collector determined the value based on the World Car Catalogue price of 1985 after giving 15% trade discount and benefit of appropriate depreciation. He arrived at the assessable value of the car at Rs. 96,241.00, for the air-conditioner at Rs. 9323/- and for the radio cassette player at Rs. 3886.0...
Orissa Extrusions Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT308TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of various Aluminium Extrusion Products. They had declared Aluminium Ingots and Magnesium as the inputs and Aluminium Tubes and Pipes as the final products in the declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.They cleared Aluminium Irrigation Tubes without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 180/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988. A show cause notice dated 112-3-1993 was issued to them alleging that before clearing the exempted goods as above during the period September 1992 to February 1993 they had not reversed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 29,59.084.15 taken on the inputs but had utilised it towards clearance of other dutiable products and had thereby contravened the provisions of Rules 57A, 57C and 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The case was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector confirming the demand of duty equal to the Modvat credit in question. The Assistant Collector's order was confirmed by Collector of Central...
Eureka Forbes Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT334TriDel
1. These appeals involve a common issue and were heard together. This combined order is passed disposing of both the appeals.2. The appellants manufacture vacuum cleaners. They clear these on payment of duty, to their depots from where they effect their sales.They had declared three items, Hose Pipe, Swivel Brush and Extension Tubes as standard accessories which are cleared from the factory with the vacuum cleaners and included their price in the assessable value of the vacuum cleaners. The department noticed that the appellants were selling their product with a number of other attachments which were described as optional accessories and that the price of these optional accessories was not included in the assessable value declared by them in their price lists. Two show cause notices were issued to them on 2-3-1993 and 2-11-1993 alleging evasion of Central Excise duty of Rs. 7,31,7007- and Rs. 19,57,677.90 for the periods August, 1992 to January, 1993 and February, 1990 to July, 1992 r...
M/S. B.L. Gupta Construction (P.) Ltd. Vs. Bharat Co-operative Group H ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)849; 1996(36)DRJ752
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The objector Bharat Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., awarded the contract to the claimant (hereinafter referred to as the contractor) for the construction of 308 flats at Rohini. The disputes were referred to Shri L. C. Chawla, Chief Engineer (Retd.) and he passed the award dated 18.12.1992. The arbitrator had 45 hearings and three joint spot inspections. By letter dated 5.11.1992 both the parties had confirmed in writing that they did not require any more hearing in the matter. 2. The arbitrator had also recorded evidence and received documents from the parties. This court directed the arbitrator to give a reasoned award and pursuant to that he has given the reasoned award. A few dates are relevant and they are as follow : 28.6.1987 The tender was submitted by the contractor. 30.7.1987 Date of commencement of work. Thirty months was the period for completing the work. 2.1.1990 Date of complaint. 26.2.1990 The Society directed the contractor to stop work. 3...
Ram Bilas Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. Ii
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(41)DRJ239
(1) Rule D.B. (2) The Labour Court by ex parte award dated 7 November 1992 directed reinstatement of the workman/respondent No. 2 with continuity of service and full back wages. According to the petitioner he learnt about the award on receipt of copy of the ex parte award on 2 February 1993 and on the next date , i.e., 3 February 1993 the petitioner through Suresh Kumar moved application for setting aside the award dated 7 November 1992. That application was dismissed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court by the impugned order dated 20 October 1994. The ex parte award and the impugned order dated 20 October 1994 are under challenge before this Court. The main ground for dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parte order is that the application is filed by Suresh Kumar, who is son of the employer Ram Bilas. The fact that Suresh Kumar is son of Ram Bilas is also mentioned in the impugned order. The order also notices that Ram Bilas has filed an affidavit that the esta...
Machine Builders Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT576TriDel
1. Since common questions arise in these appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Appellants in the Appeal No. E. 72/88, E. 384/88 and E. 252/90 have not appeared nor arranged representation in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard learned counsel Shriyuts P.K. Das, Krishna Srinivasan, V. Sridharan and Mrs. Archana Wadhwa appearing for the various private parties and Shri Sanjiv Sachdeva, SDR.2. These appeals have been referred to Larger Bench in view of conflicting decisions of the Tribunal and the present larger Bench has been constituted to hear and dispose of these appeals.3. In all these cases, the manufacturers of various products utilising certain inputs exempted from duty, claimed deemed credit on the basis of Government orders issued under second proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the Rules. The stand of the Revenue is that since in these cases there are clear materials to show that the inputs did not suffer duty, they are outside the pal...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. L.N. Chemicals Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT458TriDel
1. This Revenue appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.SKM-1364/89/BI, dated 23-6-1989 of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) has held that "ALLENOL PESP" is classifiable under Chapter Heading 3402.90 while the Assistant. Collector had held the product as classifiable under Heading 3802.00 prior to 11-2-1987 and thereafter under Chapter Heading 3809.00 as the product is a finishing agent used in textile. He has ruled out Chapter 34 placing reliance on Chapter Note 5(iv) to Chapter 34 of CETA, 1985.2. Ld. SDR, submits that the product is used as a softening agent in Textile Industry and chemical test indicated that it is not an organic surface active preparation but it is an aqueous emulsion of polyethylene wax. He concedes that Assistant Collector's reliance on Chapter Note 5(iv) was somewhat misplaced. But, on the other hand, since the product is essentially a finishing agent to impart softness to the textiles the product is specifically covered under Chapter 38 o...
Rathi Alloys and Steel Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT538TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether Modvat credit is admissible to the manufacturer-appellants on the strength of gate passes issued by the supplier/manufacturer of the inputs which showed nil duty but containing a cross reference to the original gate pass under cover of which the subject goods had been cleared earlier before they were returned for repair, reprocessing etc. under the provisions or Rule 173H. The impugned order had been passed on the limited ground that the gate passes under which the inputs had been received showed nil duty. Shri Rajesh Chibber, Learned Advocate invited my attention to the Trade Notice No. 89/89, dated 3-11-89. Bombay-I Collectorate in regard to the clearances of goods under nil duty gate passes where they relate to reprocessed goods under Rule 173H. He submitted that their case is fully covered by the procedure laid down under this trade notice. He also pointed out that they had produced a certificate issued by the Superintendent of the j...
Shri Ramakrishna Steel Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT575TriDel
1. A common question of law arises in. these appeals. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellant in Appeal E.209/89-MAS is a manufacturer of steel castings and machinery parts under Chapter Nos. 73 and 84 of Central Excise Tariff. Appellant sought to avail Modvat credit on inputs in relation to the final product of steel casting. Chemicals and resin are used in making sand mould. Sand moulds are used in the manufacture of steel castings. The Superintendent issued notice stating that the appellant was not eligible to take credit of duty paid on such inputs for making sand mould. The appellant asserted the right to take such credit. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim and on appeal, this order was confirmed by the Appellate Collector. The common appellant in Appeals E. 405 to 408/94 is a similarly situated manufacturer who also suffered similar adverse orders.3. The South Regional Bench which heard Appeal E. 209/89 referred it to...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »