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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Fenner India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT451TriDel
1. The basic issue for determination in the above appeals is the correct classification of Fenoplast PVC impregnated flame resistant colliery conveyor belting and Food quality PVC impregnated/coated cotton conveyor belting manufactured by M/s. Fenner India Ltd. - whether under Tariff Item 19III of the schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff as claimed by the Department or under Tariff Item 68 as claimed by the assessees. As all appeals involve a common issue they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.C.C.E. v. Fenner India Ltd. - By the above appeal, the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai seeks to set aside the Order-in-Appeal No. 202/89, dated 21-12-1989 of the Collector (Appeals). The assessee has claimed refund of the duty paid during the period December, 1974 to May, 1981 on the ground that duty levied under Tariff Item 19 III was wrong. The Collector (Appeals) remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for considering the question of limi...
Jay Dye Chem Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT290TriDel
1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of synthetic organic dyes falling under old Tariff Item 14D. During the year 1983-84, appellant's clearance did not exceed Rs. 2.5 lakh. That made the appellant eligible for the benefit of total exemption granted by the Notification 43/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982 for the next year, namely, 1-4-1984 to 31-7-1985. The clearance made during the period 1-4-1984 to 31-7-1985, was restricted to Rs. 2.5 lakh. The appellant availed of benefit of notification and did not pay duty. For the subsequent clearances, during the year, the appellant availed of benefit of Notification 44/82-C.E. of the same date which provided 50% duty exemption for the aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 15 lakh. The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals), have taken the view that first clearances for the purpose of Notification 44/82 started from 1-4-1982 and, therefore, the appellant cannot avail of the benefit of Notification 44/82. This was on the ground tha...
BhasIn Tobaccos (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: (1998)66ITD626(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1986-87 is directed against order of CIT(A) upholding chargeability, of addl. tax amounting to Rs. 46,802 under section 104 of the Income-tax Act. In appeal before us, learned counsel for the assessee restricted assessee's claim to the deductibility of surtax levied on the assessee company amounting to Rs. 2,00,154. According to assessee's calculation, the amount of additional tax works out to Rs. 6,394 as per the following calculations :-Assessed income 19,66,180Income-tax 12,38,693 ---------Companies Profits Surtax Act '64) 2,00,154 ---------of the Act. 5,27,333Statutory % of dividend required109(iii)(3) 60%Amount of dividend required tobe declared under section 104 3,16,394Less : Dividend actually distributed 3,10,000 --------- 2. The Assessing Officer and on appeal learned CIT(A) did not allow deduction of the surtax while computing distributable profits as in their view, surtax was not deductible under the provisions of secti...
Dalip Sakopara Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT683TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.3/Courier/DLH/95, dated 29-12-1995. Arguing for the appellant learned Advocate submits that the Company imported two pieces of gateway 2000 colour book, one piece of H P office jet printers and one piece of jesk jet of 560C and 35 pieces of flopies, through courier service. The Company Manager Shri Sat Pal had lived in USA for 9 years and was not fully aware of the laws relating to importation of goods. These were imported basically as high technology items to be used in office work.He submits that there is no intention for violating the law. The authorities below, however, confiscated these goods on the ground that the imported items was not covered in part II of Para 126 of Import and Trade Policy. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order also held that these goods are in negative list and needed import licence for legitimate import. He submits that while Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the release of computers for use on payme...
Bush India Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT585TriDel
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is the eligibility of Connectors imported by the importers herein to the benefit, of Notification No. 232/83 as amended by Notification No. 276/84, dated 17-11-1984. The appellants herein have imported various types of electronic components (as per indent No. 7959) and filed the Bill of Entry in July, 1984. The goods were warehoused and exbond Bill of Entry was filed in December, 1984. Notification No. 232/83 as stood originally, extended the benefit of concessional rate of duty in respect of all types of Connectors; however, with effect from November, 1984 Notification was amended so as to cover only four types of Connectors namely : The appellants claimed that since at the time of import in July, 1984, the Notification covered all types of Connectors, there was no detailed description for all types of Connectors shown in the invoice. However, they sought to subject that, from the indent filed along with the invoice it could be made out t...
Hcl Hewlett Packard Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT572TriDel
1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty of Rs. 4,88,48,034/- on the value of Systems Software, application Software and Peripherals which have been held to be includible in the value of computer systems manufactured by the applicants herein.2. The brief facts, leading up to the filing of the application are that the applicants are manufacturers of computers and computer systems and parts and accessories thereof failing under Chapter sub-heading 8471.00 and 8473.00. They also supplied bought out items such as application and systems software, printer, plotter, monitor, etc. along with the computer. The case of the Department is that the value of peripherals and software is to be included in the assessable value of the computer systems. The Assistant Collector confirmed a demand of Rs. 7,85,18,270/- representing duty on peripherals and software which order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) who, however, accepted the contention of the applican...
Elpro International Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT651TriDel
1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of welded and rolled tubes in Inconel alloy 601 and claimed assessment under Heading 85.11 of the CTA, 1975 as according to them these consignments consisted of spare for Rotary Tube Annealing Furnace. The assessment was made under Heading 73.17/19(2) as tubes of stainless steel. The refund claim filed by the appellants was rejected by the Assistant Collector as unsubstantiated in the absence of catalogue etc. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay upheld the original assessment, holding that the test certificate dated 17-9-1982 produced by the appellants before him related to nickel alloy sheets supplied by M/s. Wiggin Ltd. to M/s.F. Atkinson Ltd. suppliers of the appellants and also holding that the drawing produced before him was not an authentic one as it appears to have been prepared in 1986 while the import in question took place in 1982. Hence, this appeal.2. The appellants are not present today in spite of notice; hence we he...
Modi Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT256TriDel
1. The issue for determination in this appeal which has been preferred.against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay is the eligibility of Nickel-cadmium batteries imported by the appellants herein for the benefit of exemption from payment of Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 16/55, dated 18-4-1955 which grants exemption to Electric batteries of the type known commercially as 'Stationary batteries'.2. We have heard Shri K. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing alongwith Shri N.C. Sogani, learned Consultant and Shri Mohd. Ali, learned DR and carefully considered their submissions.3. The appellants contend that the goods under reference are permanently soldered on printed Circuit Board fitted in emergency lights and are hence stationary batteries in terms of the ISI definition in IS : 1885 (Part 8) 1986 which defines a stationary battery as "storage battery designed for service in the fixed location". They submit that, since the Nickel-cadmium battery is clearly defi...
J.C.T. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT94TriDel
1. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 20-10-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh. The issue involved in all these appeals is whether Modvat credit is admissible on plastic granules used in the manufacture of plastic bags in which the final products manufactured by the appellants herein namely nylon filament yarn and polyester filament yarn are packed. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Pathankot passed three separate orders in which he disallowed the Modvat credit by holding that the nylon filament yarn and polyester filament yarn are subjected to duty at specific rates and therefore the cost of LDPE granules was not included in the assessable value of the final product and hence the material will not be an input for which the Modvat credit would be taken. He also held that the LDPE granules as such are not packing material and as such are not inputs in terms of Rule 57A and explanation thereto.The Commissioner (Appeals) overruled...
Jindal Strips Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT497TriDel
1. This is an application for dispensing with the pre-deposit of demand of duty of Rs. 10,37,606/- which has been held by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Raipur in the order dated 27-2-1996 to be ineligible Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q. The goods involved are refractories used in kilns or furnaces. The learned counsel for the applicants Shri V. Sridharan submitted that the Commissioner has held that refractories have been included within the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q only after 16-3-1995 and that the demand in this case relates to a period earlier to that.However the learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal in its decision in the case of CCE v. Raipur Alloy Steels 1995 (78) E.L.T. 44 (Tribunal) had held that refractories bricks used for lining in the furnaces for manufacturing steel are in the nature of equipment or parts covered by the excluded category for Modvat credit under Rule 57A and because of this finding of the Tribunal th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »