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.
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...
New-tech Tools Manufacturers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT540TriDel
1. Since the above three appeals involve the common issue of classification of carbide tipped circular saw blades imported from Japan by the appellants herein who are manufacturers of tools, they are disposed of by this common order. The goods were cleared on payment of duty under Heading 82.01/04 Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Subsequently refund claims were filed seeking re-assessment of goods under Heading 82.06 which were rejected by the Assistant Collector. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's order and assessed the consignment under Heading 82.06 Customs Tariff Act, 1975.Hence these appeals.2. The appellants were not represented today in spite of notice; hence we heard the learned DR Shri K.K. Jha and perused the records.3. Classification under Heading 82.05 which covers interchangeable tools for hand tools, for machine tools etc. is ruled out as the imported saw blades can be used only in machine tools and are not interchangeable tools for hand tool...
J.K. Textiles Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT707TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No.6/JPR/91, dated 22-1-1996.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Nylon filament Yarn falling under Chapter Heading 54.02.4. During the process of manufacture the caprolactum is first converted into chips known as polychips.5. The caprolactum is a monomer and is converted into polyamide chips by polymerisation. During the process the caprolactum is not fully reacted and the material extruded is washed and the unreacted caprolactum is removed from the ribbon. The said unreacted caprolactum is contained in the wash water which is captively used for recovery of caprolactum.6. During the above process of manufacture of polyamide chips certain lump and ribbon waste is also generated. This waste has been classified under heading 3915.90 and the appellants had claimed exemption from duty under relevant notification. The matter regarding correct classification is under dispute. The material...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Shiv Ratan Sahu Devi Prasad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT126TriDel
1. By the present appeal the Department has assailed the order of the Collector of Central Excise holding that 'Sunghani Sahu is classifiable under Chapter heading 3306.00 as a dentifrice.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent herein are engaged in the manufacture of the item described as 'Sunghani Sahu'. On subjecting the product to chemical test it was found to contain tobacco powder and inorganic clay matter with iron oxide. The Chief Chemist opined that clay matter and iron oxide are not used in the manufacture of snuff and that the trade nomenclature and its use as Dant Manjan dentifrice may be taken into consideration while finalising the assessment. The Collector Central Excise while adjudicating the case agreed with this advice of the Chief Chemist as also on the fact that this product was used as a 'Dant Manjan'. He held that the product was rightly classifiable under Chapter heading 3306.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The department has now filed the pr...
Suresh Chand Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT135TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original No. 15/TVS/93 dated 16-2-1993 of Collector of Customs, New Delhi.2. Issue involved, relates to liability to confiscation of a tempo alleged to have transported Mandrax tablets hidden in packages containing textiles.3. Arguing tor the appellants, the Learned Advocate submits that the appellants purchased this tempo for transporting the goods, belonging to members of public, from place to place. The driver used to park the vehicle at Pusa Institute junction near East Patel Nagar for soliciting transport business. On 20-7-1992, when the vehicle was parked at the usual parking place, the appellant's driver was approached by a Sikh gentleman who requested him to transport few packages to the Cargo Unit of Indira Gandhi International Airport where, the gentleman said, he would meet him and take delivery of the goods. The tempo loaded with goods waited outside Airport Cargo complex. The Sikh gentleman who was to take the delivery did n...
Agarwal Chemical Industries Vs. Collr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT671TriDel
1. The common appellant in these appeals is absent and unrepresented inspite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri Vijay Singh, SDR and perused the papers.2. Two of the appeals were filed after a delay of a few days and applications E/COD/664 and 666/87-A have been filed for condonation of delay. In the light of the circumstances mentioned in the applications, the delay is condoned.3. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Sulphuric Acid. In the price list for the relevant period the appellant claimed deduction of Rs. 10/- per metric tonne as servicing/filling charges. The Department had disallowed the same. Goods were cleared on payment of duty. Subsequently the appellant filed refund claims on the proportion of duty referable to servicing/filling charges. Assistant Collector as well as the Collector (Appeals) have rejected the refund claims. Hence the present appeals.4. It is explained that servicing/filling charges are incurred in the course of filling acid in durable co...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mansurpur Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT91TriDel
1. In the above case Revenue is aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector. (Appeals) extending benefit of Modvat credit on cane unloader used by the respondents in their sugar factory. The respondents claim that parts of the cane unloader are capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been accepted by the lower Appellate Authority.2. I have heard Shri M. Jaya Raman, learned DR and Shri Alok Arora, learned counsel and carefully considered the rival submissions.3. The manufacture of sugar in the respondent's factory commences with the unloading of cane from truck, cart etc. to the conveyor belt which in turn feds it to their Sugar Crusher. The process of manufacture of sugar is an integral and continuous one as borne out from flow chart which is appended to this order as Annexure A. The case of the department is that cane unloader is nothing but a material handling equipment and is hence not a machine used for production of processing of any ...
Sudershan Plywood Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT375TriDel
1. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of plywood, manufactures Urea Formaldehyde and Phenol Formaldehyde Resin as intermediate products for captive consumption in the factory. Appellant filed price list in Part VI(B) effective from 2-4-1984 but failed to produce relevant documents. The Assistant Collector passed an order determining the value of U.F. Resin by adding 10% to the cost and determining the P.F. Resin under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Rules. This order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal is filed.2. The appellant has now raised a contention that these two intermediate products are not marketable nor goods and, therefore, not excisable and price lists were filed under erroneous understanding of law. In view of the nature of the plea now sought to be raised, we permit it to be raised. The Appellant has produced copies of two orders of the Tribunal passed on appeals to which the appellant was a party - one is the Order No. 632/91-C, dated 19-7-199...
Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT238TriDel
1. These are two appeals arising out of two different orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad dated 24-8-1995 and Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore dated 28-8-1992. In both the cases duty has been demanded by the Commissioner and penalty imposed on the appellants on the ground that they had manufactured electric generator sets falling under Heading 85.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 at customers site against separate contracts and purchase orders. As a result of order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad duty amounting to Rs. 2,19,14,318.00 has been demanded and penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- has been imposed on the appellant. The period involved is from June, 1986 to May, 1991. The duty demanded in the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore is Rs. 17,85,220.10 and the penalty imposed is Rs. 1,75,000/- These related to the period October, 1986 to September, 1987.2. The appellants herein had taken out Central Excise licence of s...
Indian thermoplastic (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT536TriDel
1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Kandla, demanding differential duty of Rs.-5,65,365/- on the import of slitter cum rewinder machine by the appellant, confiscating the machine under Section lll(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem it on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-, holding the appellant guilty of misdeclaration of description and value of the machine in order to obtain the benefit of OGL and to evade payment of duty and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant and Rs. 25,000/- on one of the Directors of the appellants' sister concern under Section 112 of the Act. The Collector did not impose penalty on the other officers of the appellant.2. The imported machine was second hand machine. Appellant declared the machine as "fully programmed paper cutting machine with three knife trimmers and accessories and spares" and declared value as Rs. 15,94,044/-. The machine was assessed on the invoice value and duty was paid and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »