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.
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT182TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved with the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of time bar in terms of Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in respect of duty said to have been paid during the period from 23-10-1990 to 18-6-1992 at the time of clearance.2. The assessee filed a refund claim for Rs. 75,126.90 on 2-9-1992 on the ground that the Central Excise duty had been paid twice on the same molasses. The show cause notice states that the first time this duty was said to have been paid by the party according to the orders of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut vide order dated 9-8-1984 for Rs. 39,344.04, T.C. No. 11 dated 27-11-1984, and further sum of Rs. 35,782.86 had been debited by PLA Entry No. 800, dated 15-10-1990 in terms of the Additional Collector's order dated 31-5-1988. Thus, a total amount of 75,126.90 said to have been paid on 22,880.54 qtl. of molasses. For the second time duty paid on these 22,880.54 qtl. were cleared during the perio...
Balls and Cylpebs Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT496TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the order dated 21-9-1995 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Allahabad. By this order, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the confiscation and granting option to release of the seized goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 40,000/- and penalty of Rs. 2,000/- imposed under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The facts of the case are that on an information that the appellants are indulging in suppression of production of excisable goods and clandestine removal thereof, a team of Central Preventive Officers headed by Supdt. (CP) visited the factory premises of the party on 10-7-1994 and conducted physical stock verification of the finished goods as well as raw materials. On physical verification, a quantity of 7.410 MT of Balls and Cylpebs of alloy steel valued at Rs. 1,85,250/- involving Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 27,787.50 was found in excess of the recorded balance in RG 1. A physical verification report to this effect was prepared ...
J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT41TriDel
1. By the present appeal the appellants have agitated confiscation of the imported goods as also imposition of penalty.2. The facts of the case are the appellants imported certain chemicals for the manufacture of P.P. medicines. In the bill of entry they described the goods as chemical Tetra methyl quanidine and claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 6/94. The department denied them concession on the strength of the opinion of the Assistant Drug Controller who opined that the item imported by the appellants was not bulk drug. The appellants were charged for giving wrong declaration.3. Shri K.R. Batra, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no misdeclaration of the goods. The goods described as Terra-Methyl quanidine; and that they had been claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 6/94; that if the claim was not entertainable under Notification No. 6/94 there should be neither confiscation of the goods nor the imposition of penalt...
Veterinary Council of India Vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Researc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)394; 1996(38)DRJ358
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking to restrain the defendant from holding the All India Entrance Examination in respect of 15% of the total number of seats of each Veterinary college to be filled through common entrance examination. The plaintiff. Veterinary Council of India, claims injunction on the strength of Regulation 5(8) of the Veterinary Council of India - Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education - Degree Course (BV Sc & AH) Regulations, 1993 (for short 'the Regulations') framed under the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act').(2) The plaintiff has been established under section 3 of the Act for the purpose of regulating veterinary practice in the country as delineated in the Preamble thereto, which reads as follows :- 'An Act to regulate veterinary practice and to provide, for that purpose, for the establishment of a Veterinary Council of India and State Veterinary Councils and the maintenance of registers of ...
Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT195TriDel
1. By the captioned appeal, the appellants have assailed the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals), in his order, had held that rubber crumbs and printed rubber labels shall be classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff as it then was. The learned Collector (Appeals) also held that benefit of Notification No.176/77 shall not be admissible to the appellants on the four items namely, rubber blocks, printed rubber labels, rubber solution and rubber waste.2. The facts. of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of a number of rubber products. The four items in dispute manufactured by the appellants are (i) rubber crumbs (ii) printed rubber labels (iii) rubber solution and (iv) rubber blocks. Insofar as rubber solution and rubber blocks are concerned, there is no classification dispute on these two items. However, on rubber crumbs and printed rubber labels, there is a dispute about classification. The appellants claimed their clas...
Acme Metal Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT503TriDel
1. The short point that arises for consideration in the above appeal filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay is the correct classification of the product described by the appellants who are manufacturers of Copper and Copper Alloys falling under T.I. 26A, as "Bars any size loosely called as flat or strips in crude form Block Oxidised and rolled out of duty paid copper and copper alloy wire bars"- the appellants claim that the product is classifiable under T.I. 26A(ia) of the Central Excise Tariff with the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 119/66, dated 16-7-1966 as amended from time to time while according to the department, the product in dispute is a strip classifiable under T.I. 26A(2).2. None appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of issue of notice for to-day's hearing. We proceed to hear the learned DR and decide the matter.3. The case of the appellants is that, in the absence of any definition of strip contained in the Centr...
Anil Starch Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT664TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the order-in-appeal dated 4-3-1987 passed by the Collector(Appeals), Bombay. The Collector (Appeals) has upheld the classification of the product "Anhydrous Dextrose" under sub-heading 1702.21. The Collector has held that as per Rule 3 (a) of the rules for the interpretation of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing more general description. It has been held that the item is rightly classifiable under sub-heading 1702.21 and it cannot be classifiable under Chapter 29 or Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants have requested the case to be decided on the basis of their written submissions. It is stated that the product in question is an organic compound and as such its merit classification under Chapter 29 and sub-heading 2913.00. It is also stated that the product is manufactured and marketed under strict compliance of the standards...
Collr. of Central Excise Vs. Precitex Rubber Components
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT500TriDel
1. Reverme has filed the present reference application with the request that the following alleged question of law said to have arisen out of Final Order A/1513/95-NB, dated 20-12-1995 be referred to the High Court concerned: Whether BOPP film can be termed as an input for the purpose of Rule 57A in the manufacture of aprons and cots.2. Arguing on the application Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR submitted that the goods involved in the instant case are BOPP films and the question is as to whether the same could be termed as an input for the purpose of Rule 57A in the manufacture of aprons and cots. He submitted that against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in M.P. No. 1187/91; dated 2-11-1992 the Department had filed the S.L.P.before the Supreme Court which is still pending for decision. In this premises he submitted that the proposed question be referred to the High Court concerned.3. Replying to the arguments advanced by the JDR, Shri Mulchand Bhakru, Advocate submitte...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Collr. of C. E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT122TriDel
1. By the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the order of Collector (Appeals) holding that duty shall be payable on sand mix as it is used in the manufacture of sand mould which is exempt.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants purchased from market sand and chemicals and prepared sand mix. Sand mix is further used for preparation of sand moulds which are used in the manufacture of steel castings. The appellants claimed that sand mix prepared in the process of manufacture of steel castings in exempt under Notification No.217/86 whereas the Department alleged that sand mix is a product in itself and since it is used in the manufacture of sand moulds which is exempt, therefore, sand mix cannot be treated as an exempt product under Notification No. 217/86.3. Shri V. Sridharan, the learned Advocate submits that in the process of manufacture of steel castings, the appellants procured sand and chemicals from the market on payment of duty. They used sand and certain chemic...
Sri Venkatesa Mills Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT170TriDel
1. The appellants by this appeal have agitated the demand on the ground that it is time barred.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. The appellants sought permission from the department for transfer of their cotton yarns to 5 units for the purpose of converting into hanks. The Assistant Collector permitted the appellants to remove cotton yarns as required by the appellants.Later on it transpired that the 5 units to whom the cotton yarn was transferred were non-power operated units and therefore did not come under the proviso to Rule 96E. The department therefore raised the demand for duty in their show cause notice issued on 29-10-1986 demanding duty on cotton yarn sent to these 5 units during the period 12-10-1984 to 29-10-1986. The lower authorities confirmed the demand for duty as well as imposed a personal penalty.3. Shri G. Shiva Dass, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that permission was sought from th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »