Delhi Court March 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.
Hari Chand Shri Gopal Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT281TriDel
1. The issue for consideration in these two appeals filed by M/s.Harichand Shri Gopal, is the classification of the product called Tan Chatni'. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad in his Order-in-Appeal, dated 30-5-1994 had confirmed the classification of the said product under sub-heading No. 2107.91 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff). Heading No. 21.07 covers 'edible preparations not elsewhere specified or included'. The Order-in-Appeal, dated 31-5-1994 was issued following the decision in. the above order dated 30-5-1994.2. The matter was heard on 19-9-1995 when Shri S.K. Kohli, Advocate appeared for the appellants. Revenue was represented by Shri Vijay Singh, SDR.3. The Id. Advocate stated that their product was a flavoured pan chatni in which sugar content was about 95 to 97%, and flavours were from 3 to 5%. Their price was Rs. 23.40 for 200 gms. The product had no other use and is only taken with the Ta...
Aqueous Victuals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT366TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of aerated water in the manufacture of which they use various inputs including glass bottles. After the Modvat Scheme was extended to aerated waters w.e.f. 1-3-1987 they had filed the required declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules on 25-9-1987 in respect of such glass bottles. At the time of giving such a declaration they were having in their stock a certain quantity of glass bottles for which an application under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules had also been filed on the same day. They took the credit relating to such glass bottles on 26-9-1987 and utilised an amount of Rs. 2,17,901.48 before 30-9-1987 which represented part of the amount of credit which they had claimed under Rule 57H, as stated above. A show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent against their having taken the credit on the ground that they had not obtained the prior permission of the Assistant Collector. The case was adjudicated by the Assistant Coll...
Seshan Printers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC277Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal arises in relation to import of second hand printing machinery of Swedish origin. Appellant purported to import unit of reconditioned four colour offset printing machine 1979 model and filed Bill of Entry dated 11-3-1985 for clearance through Inland Container Deport, Coimbatore. The invoice showed the price of 20,026.00 CIF Madras. The other documents also contained the same description of the consignment. Clearance was claimed under OGL Appendix I Part B No.112-14 of 1984-85 Import Policy. Appellant claimed concessional rate of duty under Project Import Regulations. Clearance was allowed as claimed with valuation of 33,000 (Rs. 4,76,570.00) on execution of provisions/duty bond. The Director of Industries of the State Government inspected the appellant's premises where the imported machine had been set up reported to the Collector of Customs, Madras that the appellant had set up one unit of single colour offset printing machine and two units of two colour offset printing...
Vee Kay Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT170TriDel
1. The present Appeal has been filed assailing the order-in-appeal wherein the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order-in-original holding that GP-1 endorsed twice was not a valid duty paying document.2. The appellants, in the instant case, are engaged in the manufacture of Potassium Silicate. During the course of a scrutiny of the RT-12 returns of the appellants, it was noticed that the appellants had taken Modvat credit on the basis of GP-1 in respect of caustic potash endorsed twice. The Departmental Officer also observed that the second endorsement on the back of the GP-1 was for a part supply of goods. It was alleged that GP-1 endorsed for part supply of goods can be accepted as a valid duty paying document only if no subsidiary gate pass is issued and the GP-1 is endorsed to the buyer for rest of the quantity, specifying the quantity sold and duty involved on such part supply made to the buyer.3. Shri J.S. Agarwal, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants referred to Boa...
Vardichand Chandanmal JaIn Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT657TriDel
1. Appellant imported 19.984 M.T. of goods declared as "Copper Scrap Birch" at invoice price US Dollars 0.55 per Ib GIF and sought clearance under OGL Appendix 6 List 8 Part III Item 4 of AM 85-88 Policy. Goods were assesseed to duty and allowed clearance subject to examination.Examination revealed that the goods were not scrap, but prime wire of copper running in length and in rolls without spool which could be imported only under specific licence as covered by No. 491 of Appendix 3 Part A of the Policy. The declared price was found to be low. On the appellant being informed, show cause notice was waived, but personal hearing was given. Finally, the Collector of Customs, Bombay passed an adjudication order confiscating the goods, fixing redemption fine of Rs. 3 lakhs, directing duty to be paid on GIF value determined as Rs. 3,72,000/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. This order is now challenged.2. Puring personal hearing by the Collector, the appellant contended that the goods ...
Pharmachem Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT41TriDel
1. The appellant in C/635/88-A manufactures product by name Oxytetracycline (capsule) using Oxytetracycline HCL as raw material.Manufacturer imported two consignments of Oxytetracycline HCL from a concern by name Krka, Yugoslavia (each of 500 kgs.) under open general licence at US $ 28.30 per kg. The goods were provisionally released.The Collector, after observing legal formalities, passed order holding that import could not have been made under OGL as it required specific licence, that there was misdeclaration of value as was evident from the price declared in a comparative import at almost the same time and demanded differential duty, confiscated the goods fixing redemption fine of Rs. 1,37,000.00 for each consignment and levied penalty of Rs. 70,000.00 on the manufacturer. Penalty of Rs. 3000.00 was imposed on the Manager of the Bank who issued the letter of credit on the ground that the document was antedated. This order is now challenged in the present appeals, one filed by the i...
Swastik Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT59TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.HN-461/PN-126/87, dated 29-7-1987. The issue relates to classification of asbestos cement pipes under erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.2. Arguing for the appellants, Ld. counsel submits that they manufacture asbestos cement pipes. These pipes are made of 85% cement and 15% asbestos fibre. On the basis of predominance these pipes are classifiable under T.I. 68 and not under T.I. 23C as products of asbestos cement. In this connection, he cited the case reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 752 (Guj.) wherein while considering the articles of plastics the High Court has held that the real character of the product is determined by the material predominantly used therein. He also draws attention to Tariff Item 22F of erstwhile tariff where predominance is again mentioned as deciding factor. Tribunal in the case of Ramchandra Suchandray Nutanganj Post Bankura (W.B.) v. CCE, Bolpur, 1986 (23) E.L.T. 487 relied upon test of predominance as the decidi...
Jaydee Agrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT354TriDel
1. The appeal by M/s. Jaydee Agrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 29-10-1991 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi whereby he had upheld the order-in-original passed by Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur Division in terms of which the latter had held that they were liable to reverse the Modvat credit taken by them on their inputs Suphuric Acid used by them in their manufacturing process part of which was recovered by them as spent Sulphuric Acid. The Assistant Collector had held that such spent Sulphuric Acid obtained by them and removed from their factory attracted the provisions 57F(l)(ii) as it amounted to removal of the inputs as such from the factory of the manufacturer.2. Shri R. Nambirajan, learned advocate, stated that their case is squarely covered by the Tribunal decision in the case of Nirma Chemical Works v. CCE Ahmedabad - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 251. He pointed out that in the said judgment while the Tribunal had held...
Vijay Gupta Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)(65)LC106Tri(Delhi)
1. The common appellant imported two consignments of sub-assemblies and transformers for actual use as components of VCR/VCP/TV sets on the strength of an automatic licence dated 17.10.1984. The Dy. Collector held that the sub-assemblies were mounted or loaded printed circuit boards (P.C.B.) and covered by Appendix 2B for Import Policy for April and May, 1984-85 and not sub-assemblies mentioned in Item 576 of Appendix 3A of the Policy and therefore, not covered by the automatic licence and imports thereof were unauthorised. It was held that value determined after enhancement exceeded the limit prescribed in the licence. Thus, goods were ordered to be confiscated under Clauses (d), (1) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 fixing redemption fine of Rs. 1,10,000/- in one case and Rs. 60,000/- in another case and personal penalty was imposed in each of the two cases under Section 111(d) of the Act. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the finding regarding the non-cover...
Leading Engineering Works Pvt. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT278TriDel
1. By the present Appeal, the appellants have assailed the order of the learned Collector (Appeals) disallowing Modvat credit on tracing system on the ground that no declaration was filed for this input.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Lathe Machine. For manufacture of Lathe Machine, the appellants procured from the market a number of components and parts. In the declaration filed under Rule 57G, the input was described as "15. Hydraulic Copy Turning Attachment with or without Power Pack and accessories of all types and sizes" and the sub-heading for classification of this item was indicated as 8466.00. The appellants got from M/s. Ditamir Hycon Limited as an item described in the gate pass as Hydraulic Tracer Model Hitrace 7090 with turret. The Department alleged that no declaration of this item was furnished by the appellants. The appellants contested that hydraulic tracer was covered by the description of the goods agains...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »