Delhi Court April 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. Anup Kumar Aggarwal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT63TriDel
1. Being aggrieved by the order of Collector (Appeals), the Commissioner, Central Excise has filed this appeal on the ground that the goods in question must have been accompanied properly by bill of lading, duty-paying document, bill and voucher, line number, import bill etc.; that the respondent herein in his statement had admitted that the goods are of foreign origin; that the respondent could not furnish the name and address of the trader who supplied him the goods; that in view of the above the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) was not legal.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the officers of Central Excise, Allahabad searched the business premises of the respondent herein which resulted in the recovery of 274 pieces of olive oil cans alleged to be of foreign origin. The respondent herein in his written statement stated that the oilve oil in the instant case was of foreign origin. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent herein to explain as to ...
Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC66Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 116/87, dated 1-9-1987. The issue relates to classification of waste products like scrap rubber, rubber components, flap, tyres and tubes arising during the course of manufacture of tyres and tubes under the old tariff.2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri Mahesh Sharma, Sr. Manager of the Company submits that the issue is fully covered in their favour by judgment of Delhi High Court reported in case of Modi Rubber v. U.O.I.-1987 (29) E.L.T. 502 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He also submits that Tribunal in its order reported in case of C.C.E. v. Dunlop India Ltd. -1988 (36) E.L.T. 349 also held that the waste arising during the course of manufacture would not qualify as manufactured product and hence not goods.3. Arguing for the Revenue, ld. DR submits that in the case reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 313 (Tribunal) Tribunal held that such scraps would be dutiable.4. We have heard both sides. We find that D...
Faridabad Forgings (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT116TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18-4-1991 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellants herein are manufacturing forged products of iron [&] steel. They took deemed modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, on certain inputs namely M.S. rounds, alloy steel rounds and round bars.The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Faridabad issued two show cause notices demanding duty for the period March 1989 to August 1989 and for the period September 1989 and October 1989 on the ground that these inputs are not eligible for deemed credit because these are not covered under the order of the Govt. of India Ministry of Finance No. 342/1 /88-TRU dated 20-5-1988. The Assistant Commissioner held that these inputs are classifiable under Heading 72.14 or 72.28 Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and in the deemed credit order items falling under these headings are not covered. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modi Xerox Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT530TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the Order-in-Appeal No. 210-CE/MRT/95, dated 21-7-1995 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise, Ghaziabad (U.P.). The issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit. Modvat credit has been denied by the Asstt. Collector on the ground that chilled water coil and weighing machine are not capital goods. He observes that the items are used in the air handling unit which in turn is used for air conditioning of the plant and thus not covered within the definition of 'capital goods'. On the other hand, the Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal, filed by the party has observed that definition of the capital goods occurring under Rule 57Q is wide enough for taking within its fold all types of machinery, equipments etc. used for producing the goods. The chilled water coils is used for the air handling unit which is meant for bringing down the temperature in the coating room. The chilled water coils is therefore, covered under ...
indo European Machinery Co. P. Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT271TriDel
1. When the appeal is called there is none to represent the appellants though there is a letter from Shri C. Hari Shankar, Advocate stating that the notice of hearing was received only on 12-4-1996 and the counsel who was dealing with this case has become Additional Solicitor General of India; he would not be able to pursue the case and that efforts have been made to contact the appellants and ascertain the position of the case and obtain a Vakalatnama. Adjournment of the case has, therefore, been requested for.2. As this is an old case of 1989 and as the facts involved in the appeal lie within a short compass, we have decided to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing Smt. Ruchira Pant, learned SDR is present on behalf of the respondent Collector. The facts of the case as come out in the appeal and which are referred to by the learned SDR are that the appellant had arranged to import 3 Nos. GDR Make Polygraph Automatic Folding Machine Multi Effect Model 2673/3 S.22, 44. 4.4. FS...
Amritsar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT359TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector dated 31-5-1994.The issue involved is whether plastic crates used for transportation of aerated waters are eligible inputs within the parameters of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or not.2. The assessees were represented by Shri Dalip Singh, Consultant. The Revenue was represented by Shri Y.R. Kilayania, JDR.3. Shri Dalip Singh argued that the crates were not merely used for transportation of the aerated waters to the market but were used in all stages of the manufacture inside the factory. He referred to and relied upon the order-in-appeal dated 11-5-1994 passed by the Commissioner in which it was held that plastic crates were eligible inputs for Modvat credit. Referring to Notification No. 36/95-C.E./ante, dated 17-11-1995, Shri Dalip Singh claimed that this notification specifically excluded crates and glass bottles used for aerated water.It must therefore, be argued that before such specific inclusion, these goods qua...
Collector of Customs Vs. K.B. Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT605TriDel
1. Collector of Customs, Bombay has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-7-1992 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay whereby the latter had allowed the appeal filed before him by M/s. K.B. Corporation who are respondents herein stating aside the Order-in-Original dated 4-6-1992 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs Gr.2(B) and directing that the invoice value shall be taken as the assessable value for the goods, 9.072 Metric Tonnes of Cellosize (Hydroxy Ethyl Cellulose) imported by them. The miscellaneous application has been filed by the Collector for placing on record additional evidence by way of the full markings appearing on the bags in which the subject goods had been imported particularly the name of the manufacturer, Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastic Company Inc.Speciality Chemical Division and also to accept such an empty bag as an exhibit.2. We have heard Shri T.R. Malik, learned Senior Departmental Representative who appeared for the a...
Aqueous Vietuals Ltd. Vs. Collr. (Appeals), Customs and C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT399TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Aqueous Vietuals Limited, Bareilly the point for consideration is availment of Modvat Credit in respect of Polythene film. The appellants had claimed that this Polythene film is eligible for Modvat Credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it was a packing material. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, who adjudicated the matter, came to a finding that the Polythene film declared as input in the Declaration dated 30-8-1993 filed under Rule 57G was not an input within the meaning and purview of Rule 57A. I have heard Shri Kapil Vaish, C.A. and Shri Joginder Singh, Jt. C.D.R.2. Shri Kapil Vaish, C.A., explained that the Polythens film was used to cover 12 bottles of aerated water in a take way pack no such polythene film was used in the manufacture, it was not a take away pack. He relied upon the following decisions: (ii) Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-II, - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 595 (Tribunal).Collector of Central Excise v. Easte...
Parag Vanaspati Products Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT592TriDel
1. These appeals are against the common order dated 27-11-1991 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. The appellants, herein, are engaged in the manufacture of vegetable products and availed of cash credit scheme for use of minor specified oil in their final product in terms of Notification 27/87 issued under Rule 57K of the Central Excise Rules. One of the conditions in this notification is that the quantity of credit utilised for payment of duty on any individual clearance of the final product shall not exceed Rs. one thousand PMT of the vegetable product cleared and the excess credit, if any, available in the credit account, shall not be refunded to the manufacturer or adjusted against or utilised for payment of duty on any excisable goods in any other circumstances. Notification 27/87 was rescinded on 25-8-1989 by Notification 39/89. Subsequently, another Notification 45/89, dated 11-10-1989 was issued on the same lines for the same purpose, namely, to ...
Paras Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT140TriDel
1. The appellants, herein, manufacture photo-copier machines falling under sub-heading 9009.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They filed a declaration under Rule 57G indicating the inputs intended to be used in the final product. This declaration in respect of inputs for photo-copier was made as "parts, accessories and components". These parts and components were declared to fall under heading 9033.00 CETA, 1985. The department found that besides availing of Modvat credit on parts and components falling under Heading 9033.00, the appellants had also availed of Modvat credit on inputs on parts and components falling under various other chapters 85, 70 of CETA and under various sub-headings thereunder. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the appellants on the ground that inputs falling under other than Chapter 90 were not inputs for which any declaration has been made at under Rule 57G and Modvat availed of on these inputs was sought to be recovered. The jurisdictional Assi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »