Delhi Court July 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.
Raj Woollen Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT691TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.29/87, dated 9-11-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Director Publication), New Delhi. The Collecor in his order held that "scouring" of wool amounts to manufacture and therefore he confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 16,41,322.30 and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs.2. The facts of the case are in brief that the appellants are engaged in the scouring of wool. The department alleged that scouring of wool is a process of manufacture and therefore duty under Tariff Item 68 was chargeable on scouring wool. For this purpose the department relied upon charging of duty on scoured wool alleged to be manufactured by M/s. Punjab Wool Combers Ltd. The adjudicating authority held that scouring of wool amounts to manufacture and therefore confirmed the demand and imposed a personal penalty.3. Shri G. Shiv Dass, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the sole...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. J.G. Glass Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT524TriDel
1. These two Revenue appeals are filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 16th October, 1986 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The issue that falls for determination is whether the cost of gunny bags claimed to be durable and returnable is includible in the assessable value of glass bottles.3. Arguing for the Revenue, the learned DR submits that for assessment of excise duty value of the exisable goods when such goods are delivered at the time of removal is to be taken and such price should include the cost of packing. These bottles cannot be sold in wholesale market in the primary packing which is only grass cushioning in this case. The value of gunny bags, therefore, has to be included as it is essential normal packing. The gunny bag is not durable packing.4. Arguing for the respondents, the learned Advocate submits that the Supreme Court in the case of Mahalakshmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 727 (SC) held that cost of packi...
Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT411TriDel
1. This reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 has been filed for referring to the High Court questions of law arising out Final Order No. A/731-733/95-NB, dated 11-9-1995. The brief factual background leading to the present decision is as follows: The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of tyres, tubes, flaps and other rubber products. They were availing of Modvat facility under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Prior to April, 1992 in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of tyres/tubes cleared at nil rate of duty the applicants had been reversing the Modvat credit taken by making a debit entry in their RG 23A Part II register. However, by a letter dated 21-5-1992, they informed the Assistant Commissioner that they would not be reversing the amount of Modvat credit taken in respect of tyres/tubes cleared at nil rate of duty. The applicants were thereafter served with three show cause notices dated 22-9-1992 requ...
Netplast Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT434TriDel
1. The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals), in his order, dated 26-5-1995 upheld the order of Asstt. Collector confirming the demand of Rs. 20,793/-.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Tariff Items 8714, 8708, 8529 and 8513 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are availing credit facility on the strength of the declaration filed by them under Rule 57G. While checking the RT 12 returns for the month of February, 1994, the Central Excise officers observed that the appellants have availed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 20,793/- on the basis of photocopy of the Gate Pass No. 0723, dated 25-1-1994. The Department alleged that since the appellants did not have the original duty paying documents, they were not entitled to avail credit of duty paid on inputs under the Modvat scheme in respect of this photocopy of the gate pa...
M.J. Electricals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT312TriDel
1. These stay applications are filed in four main appeals bearing Nos.C/1719-1722/96-B2. Since the applicant is common and issue is the same, these four applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri R.K. Habbu, Advocate appeared for the appellant. The department was represented by Shri R.A. Shiekh, JDR. The appellants are an export oriented unit located in Kandla Free Trade Zone. They imported capital goods in four different consignments and filed Bills of Entry for clearance thereof. The jurisdictional Additional Collector held that these goods were imported in excess of the projected value and that at the time of importation thereof, the prior approval of the Development Commissioner of the Free Trade Zone had not been obtained. After hearing the present appellant, the Additional Collector proceeded to order confiscation of the goods in each case and prescribed redemption fines in addition to appropriate duty payable. The appellants filed fo...
Shailesh Kumar Mahendra and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT644TriDel
1. The appellants imported bearings and bushings which were assessed to duty under Heading 84.62(2). Thereafter, the appellants filed a refund claim in respect of two bushes claiming that they were tractor parts and merited classification under Heading 87.04/06. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the lower authority's order resulting in the present appeal. In the appeal Memorandum, the claim is made that the impugned goods were exclusively used for tractors and would, therefore, merit assessment as parts of tractors. It was claimed that the plea of the lower authority that the subject goods would be covered under Heading 84.62 or 84.63 was wrong, since the impugned goods were bushes and were required to be distinguished from bearings.2. Shri K. Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jain Engineering Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay -1987 (32) E.L.T. 3 (SC) in ...
Collector of Customs Vs. O.E.N. India Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT317TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of Collector (Appeals), Madras, dated 21-4-1986.2. This matter had come up for hearing earlier and a miscellaneous Order No. C/11/96-B, dated 23-2-1996 was passed directing both the sides to file technical literature/write up and fixing the date of hearing as 4-4-1996. This order was communicated to both the sides.3. In spite of notice, nobody has appeared for the appellants perhaps because in their letter dated 10th February, 1996, they had already requested the Tribunal to decide the case on the basis of records without their personal appearance.4. The Assistant Commissioner has, on the other hand, sent a letter dated 28-3-1996 enclosing a copy of the technical write-up including a technical pamphlet containing general information and a letter of the respondents.5. In these circumstances, we have perused the records and heard learned DR.6. Learned DR stated that in this case, the respondents had imported inter alia a Vid...
Mettur Chemical and Indus. Corpn. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT114TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 24-9-1986 of Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore.2. The issue relates to durability of certain items of plant and machinery claimed to be non-dutiable by the appellants.3. Arguing for the appellants, the Learned Advocate submits that they filed a classification list on 28-8-1981 declaring plant and machinery for chlorine-Scrubbing and disposal system and claimed it as non-excisable. On 4th March, 1985, Superintendent of Central Excise visited their factory for spot study with reference to classification list filed by them. On 25-3-1985 revised classification list was filed again declaring the goods as non-excisable. The goods were cleared during the period 31st January, 1985 to 30th March, 1985 on gate passes. RT 12 for January, 1985 covering gate passes dated 31-1-1985 and 15-3-1985 were also assessed finally. On 31-1-1985, RT 12 for March, 1985 covering the two other gate passes was also assessed finally. On 14th Jun...
Madan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1996
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT595; 1997(42)DRJ538
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 12th October, 1992 while Shri Baldev Raj Sharma who was employed as Senior Supervisor with the Super Bazar, Mansarover Park, Delhi was proceeding towards the United Commercial Bank, G.T. Road, Shahdara, he was waylaid and was robbed of Rs. 13,263.00 . The persons accused of having robbed him of the said amount were stated to be none other but the present appellant and his companion. It was claimed that the appellant was armed with a knife and that the same was recovered while he was trying to make his escape good.(2) To be fair enough to the learned counsel for the appellant he is pressing the appeal only on two grounds. Firstly, that the offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out and secondly that conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was bad as no knife was used in commission of the offence.(3) That the appellant had committed robbery stands proved beyond doubt from the statement ...
Ellora Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT673TriDel
1. When the matter was called, Shri Lakshmikumaran, the learned Advocate submitted that on 9th April, 1996 their case was listed before Bench 'C'. On that day, Bench 'C' was not only hearing the matters of Bench 'C' but also the matters of Bench 'D'. However, some cases on that date were transferred to Court IV which was an extra-divisional Bench; that in this confusion, the appellants could not appear for no fault of their own. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be restored.2. Shri A.K. Madan, the learned SDR submits that the appellants should be prepared to face this type of eventualities. However, he leaves it to the discretion of the Bench.3. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that sometimes this eventuality happens when some cases from one Bench are transferred to other Benches. This happened also on 9-4-1996. Having regard to this fact we restore the appeal to its original number. ROA is disposed of accordingly. To come up for hearing on 23rd August, 1996....
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »