Delhi Court June 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.
Maheshwari Marbles and Granites Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT461TriDel
1. By this appeal, the appellants have assailed the order of Collector, Central Excise confirming the demand of Rs.73,072/- and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 15,000/-.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Central Excise officers visited the factory of the appellants on 22-11-1992. During the course of checking the records, the officers recovered one pocket diary from Shri Shyam Sunder Daga, the authorised signatory of the appellants. This diary contained date wise details of product on of marble slabs for the period 1-10-1992 to 21-11-1992. The notings in the diary revealed that the actual production of the marble slabs was being recorded in the said pocked diary and that only that quantity was being recorded in RG-1 register which the appellants wanted and not the entire production as was recorded in the pocket diary. The officers after comparing the production recorded in the pocket diary with the production recorded in RG-1 register found that 6051.480 sq. meter...
Pratap Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT193TriDel
1. In this case the application was filed for stay of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25-9-1995. On examination of the prayer made and facts of the case it appears that the main issue can be settled at this stage itself. Therefore the main appeal is also taken up for consideration.2. The appellants manufacture iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had declared graphite electrodes and nipples as eligible inputs in the declaration filed under Rule 57G. They were however purchasing and using graphite electrodes and carbon electrodes including nipples as inputs in the manufacture of final product and had taken credit thereupon on 12-5-1994. A show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of modvat credit availed on such carbon electrodes and nipples during the period 1-12-1993 to 31-3-1994. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 55,454.27 and also imposed a penalty of Rs 5,000/-. This order was upheld...
Shri Madhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT519TriDel
1. The short issue for determination in this appeal is whether brown sugar produced during a particular year and refined during subsequent year is eligible for excess sugar production rebate during the year it was produced.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants submitted a claim for rebate of duty amounting to Rs. 33,181 /- on 1706.63 quintals of sugar obtained by reprocessing of 1921 quintals of brown sugar produced during the year 1982-83 season. The appellants contended that according to para 2(iv) of Notfn. No. 135/83, dated 30-4-1983 "Any sugar obtained by reprocessing of defective or damaged sugar or brown sugar, if the same has already been included in the quantity of sugar produced shall not be taken into account in computing the production of sugar during the period mentioned in column (1) of the said table in respect of a factory mentioned therein" and in accordance with this sub-para, it is clear that it was permissible to include brown sugar as prodtic-tion of se...
Degremont India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: (1996)59ITD423(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A)-V, New Delhi, on 5th September, 1995 of asst. yr. 1992-93. The assessee has raised the following ground in this appeal : "That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in denying deduction under s. 80-I to the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not an "industrial undertaking engaged in production or manufacture of an article or thing." 2. The appellant company is an engineering company engaged in the business of designing, supply and installation of effluent treatment plant for treating the effluent to meet the discharge standards of Central/State Pollution Control Board as well as to achieve the quality of the treated effluent acceptable for reuse/recycle to the possible extent. The company submitted its return of income declaring taxable income of Rs. 1,61,83,313 on 30th December, 1992. The same was processed under s. 143(1)(a) in which the income was determined at Rs...
Degremont India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)473
ORDERB. M. KOTHARI, A.M. :This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A)-V, New Delhi, on 5th September, 1995 of asst. yr. 1992-93. The assessed has raised the following ground in this appeal :'That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in denying deduction under s. 80-I to the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not an 'industrial undertaking engaged in production or manufacture of an article or thing.'2. The appellant company is an engineering company engaged in the business of designing, supply and installation of effluent treatment plant for treating the effluent to meet the discharge standards of Central/State Pollution Control Board as well as to achieve the quality of the treated effluent acceptable for reuse/recycle to the possible extent. The company submitted its return of income declaring taxable income of Rs. 1,61,83,313 on 30th December, 1992. The same was processed under s. 143(1)(a) in which the income ...
N.M. Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT675TriDel
1. It appears that a notice for todays hearing in this matter was duly issued by the Registry. In spite of it neither any appearance has been caused nor there is any other communication requesting for adjournment or otherwise. In the circumstances, we have gone through the appeal memorandum and the impugned orders, and heard the D.R.2. Learned D.R. stated that this is case in which the appellants were bringing duty paid hot rolled strips of stainless steel and were manufacturing cold rolled strips therefrom. In the process some scrap was generated and a question has arisen whether duty was payable on such scrap. The appellants have claimed the benefit of Notification No.54/64 but the department has denied the same on the ground that they had availed set-off of under Notification No. 75/67 and therefore the benefit of Notification No. 54/64 was not available.3. The issue has already been settled by the Tribunal's order in the case of Pioneer Metal Industries (A. No. E/2961/86-B, dated ...
T.E.L.C.O. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT531TriDel
1. M/s. Telco imported two bus air conditioners and claimed their clearance in terms of exemption Notification No. 117/78-Cus. vide S.No.125 of the Schedule thereto. The Assistant Collector made assessment without giving them the benefit of the exemption on the observation that the said entry covered import of parts and assessories of machinery or mechanical appliances falling under Heading No. 84.07 to 84.65 and that the impugned goods being air conditioners were classifiable under Heading 84.12 of the CTA 1975 and were complete machinery. In his order-in-appeal the Collector upheld this order giving rise to the present appeal being filed before us.2. The appellants were not present although the notice has been served upon them. In the appeal memo, the plea was made that the appellants had been granted advance licence for the import of the impugned goods for fitment to the buses specifically meant for transportation. If the belief had been that, such goods were not covered under the ...
Punjab Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT376TriDel
1. The appellants in this case were operating under the Modvat scheme prior to 30-3-1993. From 1-4-1993 to 30-6-1993 they operated under Exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. without availing the Modvat option. From 1-7-1993 after availing of full exemption under the said Notification they again went over to the Modvat Scheme. At this stage they claimed credit of the duty paid on the inputs lying in stock as also the inputs contained in the final products lying in stock. The Assistant Collector permitted them the credit on the inputs lying in stock but rejected their request for credit on the inputs contained in the final product lying in stock on the ground that the assessee has not placed before him documentary evidence sustaining the claim. Before the Collector (Appeals) the appellants contended that duty paying documents were submitted to the jurisdictional Range Officer and copies thereof were also available with them. It was contended before the Collector (Appeals) that if those ...
C.R. Salian Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT712TriDel
1. These reference applications arises from the rejection of the appeals as being not maintainable by upholding the preliminary objection raised by the department as per the Tribunal's Final Order No. C/145-146/93-B2, dated 22-11-1993. The applicants after making out the necessary grounds have raised the following question of law for reference to the High Court under Section 130(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 : "In the above facts and circumstances, whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant as not maintainable?" 2. The facts of the case arising for these reference applications as stated by appellants are: "The facts of the case are that the department issued a show cause notice dated 7-3-1992 to M/s. ORG Systems and to C.R. Salian above named appellants and it appear no show cause notice was issued to Shri H.C. Choksi, the other appellant in this case under Sections lll(m), 112(a) for violation of Section 11 of Customs Act, 1962. The company filed a d...
Collector of Customs Vs. Kirloskar Electric Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT141TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Collector (Appeals).Collector (Appeals) in his order had held that the item imported by the respondents herein was classifiable under heading No. 90.29(2)1 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Collector (Appeals) also held that consequential relief shall be admissible to the respondents herein.2. The facts of this case in brief are that the respondents herein imported Thermal Ribbon Sensors and claimed its classification under Tariff Item 85.18/27(1). The Assistant Collector later on held that the imported product was correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 90.29(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and accordingly confirmed a demand for the differential duty. In appeal the Collector (Appeals) after going through the documentary evidence held that the imported goods were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 90.29(1). This finding of the Collector (Appeals) has been challenged in the appeal.3. Shri Mohamad Ali, the learned JDR appearin...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »