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.
K.G. Khosla Compressors Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC921Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd., Faridabad being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 28-2-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the Foundry Chemicals used in the preparation of sand moulds and sand cores are eligible for Modvat Credit and whether such Modvat Credit could be utilised towards payment of duty on the castings.3. Shri Y.D. Gera, Advocate appearing for the appellants explained that the various chemicals were received by them from outside and these chemicals were used in the preparation of the sand moulds. He submitted that the sand moulds were not goods and after use, had to be discarded.They had no independent existence. In the moulding, design to be cast is placed and then, the design is covered by the sand which is called here sand mould. This sand mould is used for casting and thereafter is of no use and are destroyed. He submitted that under the S...
Stericat Gutstrings (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT779TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order No. S/30/15/1-CE/93/3131, dated 2-9-93 of Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The appellants are alleged to have manufactured sterile surgical sutures falling under tariff item 3005.90 and cleared the same without payment of duty after exceeding the exemption limit under Notification No. 175/86.3. Arguing for the appellants ld. Advocate submits that what they manufacture is non-sterile sutures leviable to duty under Heading 4201.90 and the same is exempted from duty under Notification No.279/88, dated 16-11-88. They send these pouches to B.A.R.C. and Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Research for the purpose of sterilisation as they have no equipment for sterilisation. The excise duty if at all was payable by these Institutes since it is at that stage non-sterile catguts became excisable through process of sterilisation. Admittedly they receive back these pouches after sterilisation and they re-pack them for sale but that by itself would n...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bright Bros. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT83TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. V-2(39 Ch) 2631/88-B II, dated 5-7-1989, The issue for determination is whether under Chapter 39 the conversion of granules into powder form would amount to manufacture during the period prior to 1-3-1988.2. Arguing for the Revenue, the Ld. SDR submits that Collector erred in holding that during the period prior to 1-3-1988 conversion of granules into powder, another primary form, would not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in view of Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 39. He, therefore, erred in setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector who has held that in view of Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 39 the conversion would amount to manufacture. Ld. DR submits that Chapter Note 6 to Chapter Note 39 even prior to amendment categorically states that conversion of one primary form into another primary form amounts to manufacture . In this case granules are converted into powder. Conversion of gran...
Bharat Steel Tube Ltd. Vs. Ranjit Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT220; 1996RLR200
Mahinder Narain, J. 1. In the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Another), it has been held that the premises, rent whereof is more than Rs. 3500/-per month, is outside the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. Mr. Arun Mohan, appearing for the appellant, contends that in the instant case the first letting of the premises was less than Rs. 3500/- per month, and on that account, by virtue of the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the rent on which the premises was first let, becomes the standard rent of the premises, and it is unlawful to receive the rent higher than the rent payable at the first letting. The rent payable at the first letting was Rs. 3058.05 p. per month as on 1.7.1980, and the rent paid at the time when the eviction was sought on 18.7.1990, was Rs. 4070/-. Mr. Arun Mohan further contends that the rent of Rs. 4070/- was not receivable lawfully, as the standard rent which was fixed for the premises on first letting was Rs. 3058.05 p.3....
Sanjay Steel Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT307TriDel
1. The captioned five appeals arise out of the same impugned order and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The issues for decision in these five appeals are (a) whether M/s Shalin Cosmetics, M/s. Zenith Enterprises and Sanjay Steel Co. are dummy units of M/s. Lakme Ltd. (b) whether they are eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 140/83, dated 5-5-1983 (c) whether the demand of duty is hit by limitation and (d) whether penalty can be imposed on the appellants.3. The facts of the case, in brief, as set out in the order-in-original are that M/s. Lakme Ltd., Bombay was engaged in the manufacture Talcum Powder falling under erstwhile Tariff Item No. 14F : that M/s. Lakme Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said company) created three units in the name and style as M/s. Sanjay Steel Co., M/s. Zenith Enterprises and M/s. Shalin Cosmetics for manufacture of Lakme brand Talcum Powder.The Department alleged that the intention of creating the said units was to ava...
Rang Udyog Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT648TriDel
1. These appeals are directed against the order of Collector, Central Excise. The Collector in his order had ordered the payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,22,464.33 and also imposed a panlty of Rs. 5.0 lakhs each on M/s. Rang Udyog in Appeal No. E/1528 and M/s.Indodyes Chemical Indus, in Appeal No. E/1529/91-C.2. The facts of the case briefly stated as set out in the order-in-original are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of S.O. Dyes. During the course of verification of the records, the officers noticed that both the units were partnership concerns having four partners in each which are either related by blood or having some common partners. It was also noticed that machineries were common, the premises for keeping the raw materials and finished product were common and raw materials were used as per the requirement in their products, there was no separate stock of raw materials, kept two common workers - (chemist and supervisor) and other staff were ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Fibre Foils (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT463TriDel
1. By the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) had held that the appeal in Tribunal was dismissed due to delay in filing of such appeal by Collector, Central Excise, Bangalore and that this authority cannot set aside the Order-in-Appeal No. 113/87-B as no such powers are invested in this authority. Accordingly, the application of the Assistant Collector cannot be entertained on merits and is dismissed as non-entertainable.2. When the matter was called, Shri A.K. Madan, the learned SDR was present for the appellant whereas none was present for the respondents and the Bench proceeded to hear the appeal ex parte. At this stage, Shri V. Sridharan, the learned Counsel intervened to say that he had sent the Vakalatnama to the respondents and therefore, he may be allowed to argue on behalf of the respondents in the absence of Vakalatnama. He was not allowed to represent the respondents and we proceeded to hear the appeal.3. The ...
Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT293TriDel
1. In all these appeals common question of facts and law are involved hence, they are all taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the duty paid on printing ink utilised for printing the brand name and the manufacturer's name on the paper bags just to identify the product with the manufacturer is entitled for the benefit of MODVAT Credit. The appellants had utilised MODVAT Credit in respect of input printing ink falling under Chapter Heading 3215.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The department issued a show cause notice in respect of such alleged wrong utilisation for MODVAT purpose and has demanded as to why the duty should not be recovered from them under the provision of Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. Arguing for the appellants the Learned Advocate submitted that the lower authorities have followed the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Park Products (P) Ltd. v...
Nath Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT318TriDel
1. In this appeal, the issue for determination is whether concessional rate of duty under Notification 128/77, dated 18-6-1977 on the basis of annual installed capacity is available to the appellants or not.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper. The appellants claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 128/77, dated 18-6-1977 on the ground that the annual installed capacity of mill in respect of all varieties of paper and paper board was not exceeding 5,000 MT. The Department was of the view that the annual installed capacity of the mill was more than 5,000 MT and they were not eligible to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 128/77, dated 18-6-1977. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 12-12-1979 to the appellants asking them to show cause to explain as to why the differential duty of Rs. 13,21,559.30 should not be demanded from them, on the goods cleared during the period 1-1-1978 to 30...
Lakshmi Cement Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT271TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original No. 3/TVS/92 dated 3-11-1992. The Collector, Central Excise, in his order held: "Further definition of plan which includes design and drawings as classified by the Hon'ble CEGAT order must have been hand drawn to accept its inclusion under 4606. So this Hon'ble CEGAT order is not applicable to the subject issue. Now the importers reference to Chapter Note 4 last sentence deserves our attention. It states that 'however printed picture or illustrations not bearing a text whether in the form of signature or speparate sheets fall in Heading No. 49.11. But this note is silent about 'designs with notings' which is what the subject goods were found on examination. This does not therefore justify its classification under 4901. Description of goods as per invoice and bill of entry clearly ascertain the classification under Heading 4911.91. General Rules of Interpretation also justify its inclusion under 4911.91. General Rules of Interpre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »