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.
illavia Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT138TriDel
1. One of the captioned ROMs is filed by the Department and the other is filed by the appellants.2. Shri A.K. Madan, the learned SDR appears for the Department and Shri P. K. Dave, Advocate appears for M/s Illavia Enterprises.3. In the ROM application filed by the Department it has been pleaded that in the last sentence of Para 11 at page 8 of the Final Order No.136/96-C, dated 12-3-1996, a mistake has crept in and that the sentence instead of reading as "The extended period has therefore, incorrectly applied" should have been as "The extended period has therefore, incorrectly been applied". Both the sides agree that the mistake is apparent on the face of the record. We find that this is a typographical error. We accordingly accede to the request and allow the ROM application of the Department. The correct sentence is : "The extended period has therefore, been correctly applied", and the same should be substituted in place of the existing sentence.4. In the ROM application filed by M/...
Gurmeet Singh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT642TriDel
1. In this case, one Shri Jaswant Singh residing in U.K., sent a letter to the appellant containing also currency amounting to Pounds 250/-. On detection, the currency was seized and confiscated absolutely, under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 for contravention of Section 13(1) of FERA, 1970. The Assistant Collector also observed that the appellants had not produced any permission from the Reserve Bank of India for this importation. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the lower authority's order observing that the currency was concealed in the letter. Against this order, the present appeal is directed.2. Shri J.K. Wadhawan, Advocate appearing for the appellants, stated that both the sender and receiver of the currency are illiterate persons. The currency was not concealed in any manner. The currency was sent for the family expenses of the receiver. Shri Gurmeet Singh had approached the Reserve Bank of India for permission and the RBI had agreed to consider the request if the Custo...
Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Coromandal Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT443TriDel
1. By the present appeal the department had assailed the order of Collector (Appeals) holding that there is nothing in the notification or in any technical literature produced before the Assistant Collector or relied upon by him which makes a differentiation between "populated printed circuit board" and "printed circuit board".2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein are alleged to be manufacturers of alleged "printed circuit boards (chassis assembly)". The respondents were getting the alleged "unpopulated printed circuit boards" with perforated holes on it from M/s.Dynavision. The respondents herein claimed the benefit of Notification No. 74/85 saying that they are manufacturing only "unpopulated circuit boards" and therefore such circuit boards were exempt whereas the Assistant Collector held that the appellants were manufacturing "populated printed circuit boards" and that populated printed circuit boards were not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 74/85.Ho...
Oswal Steels Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT42TriDel
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the findings of the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) held that the refractories were used for lining of electric arc furnace are not inputs for the manufacture of iron and steel products.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products. The appellants took credit of duty for the period June, 1987 to June, 1988 paid on refractories used for lining of electric arc furnace which are used in the manufacture of iron and steel products. The declaration under Rule 57G in respect of refractories was filed on 28-3-1986. The department alleged that refractories are not used as inputs for the manufacture of iron and steel products. Accordingly a show casue notice was issued asking the appellants to explain as to why Modvat credit of duty on refractories should not be disallowed and why the penalty should not be imposed on the appellants. After careful conside...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hab Pharmaceuticals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT704TriDel
1. The captioned two appeals are filed by the Collector, Central Excise, Bombay-II. In the first Appeal No. E/4062/89-C, the respondent is M/s. HAB Pharmaceuticals and in Appeal No. E/4626/89-C, the respondent is M/s. Cyto Pharmaceuticals. As the issue for determination in both the appeals is same, the two appeals are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The main value for determination in these two appeals is whether the value of clearances effected by M/s. HAB Pharmaceuticals and M/s. Cyto Pharmaceuticals unit should be added to the value of the goods manufactured by M/s. Group Pharmaceuticals which got their goods manufactured from these two firms.3. The facts of the case are that M/s. HAB Pharmaceuticals and M/s.Cyto Pharmaceuticals are two small-scale units engaged in the manufacture of P.P. Medicines. They manufacture these medicines on their own account as well as on behalf of others. In this case both these units manufactured medicines for M/s...
Nidhi Dhawan Vs. Sunil Dhawan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: 1996RLR375
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) [ED. facts : Plaintiff has sued Defts. for recovery of 'Stridhan' (about Rs 7 lac) and injunction alleging that parties were married at Delhi on 6.1.93 and left for Australia on 28.3.96 where Deft. no. 1 (husband) had his work ; there she was made to work as a labourer and was given cruel treatment, that Deft. 1 was and is severely diabetic which fact was concealed by Deft. no. 1 and his parents. That unable to bear cruelty, she managed to fly back to India in Dec., 93, on the pretext of her father's sickness, with just a couple of dresses. To save mental torture of her parents and on the assurance of husband's parents of better treatment, she returned to Australia on 13.2.94. Soon she overheard telephonic talk between Defts. 1 & 3 that plaintiff should be killed by poison. After this, plaintiff could no longer remain there and left house on pretext of job interview and with the help of a friend of her father returned in the last week of Feb., 94. She has also s...
Rockdrill India Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT505TriDel
1. The appellants are absent and are not represented. They have sent written submission requesting that the appeal may be disposed of on merits. We have heard Shri Haja Mohideen, JDR for the respondents.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Rock Drilling bits covered by the erstwhile Tariff Item 51A. Rock Drilling bits contain reaming shells or cores to which are fitted industrial diamonds which provide the cutting edge for the drilling operation. The cores are made of iron and steel. The appellants manufacture the reaming shells or cores and the other parts of the drilling bits, purchase diamonds and use the same in the manufacture of the finished product. It appears that diamonds are salvaged out of worn out or damaged drilling bits and the diamonds which are so salvaged by the appellants, are used in the manufacture of new Rock Drilling bits. Where the diamonds themselves get damage. They are removed and replaced by new diamonds and the (sic) the drilling bits become ...
Kakkar Complex Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT168TriDel
1. This stay application was argued by Shri B.N. Sharma, Consultant.Shri Y.R. Kilania, JDR appeared for the respondent/Revenue and he reiterated the contentions in the Original Order.2. The appellants used "Hot-tops" and Refractory Bricks as inputs in their final products Steel Ingots. The Dy. Collectors denial of the benefit was up-held by the Collector (Appeals).3. As regards the Refractories, Shri Sharma, ld. Consultant referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the stay application filed by the Hindalco Industries Ltd. -1995 (80) E.L.T. 222 (Tribunal). In this case the Tribunal had stayed the recovery of the duty on the ground that the admissibility of Refractory was a contentious matter. Shri Sharma, ld.Consultant desired the benefit of the judgment and requested for un-conditional stay. He further submitted that the appellants had also made an alternate plea for acceptance of Refractory as inputs under Rule 57Q. The Assistant Collector had denied this plea on the ground that Cr...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Didar Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT702TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals), in his order dated 7-4-1995 had held: "On going through the facts of the case I hold that the impugned order needs to be set aside entirely. Trade Notice as the word indicates is a notice for the information of the trade. There is no legal or statutory binding factor in it. It is admitted in the impugned order that the trade notice was issued to prevent misuse the facility of Modvat credit. Impugned order does not charge that misuse had taken place. The charge is only of not following the procedure as laid down in the trade notice and therefore, it can best be held that there is a procedural irregularity and for this a substantive right cannot be denied. It is not the department's case that the inputs have not been used in the manufacture of final product, it is not the department's case that the inputs were not received, it is not the department's case that the f...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gopal Soap Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT750TriDel
1. By this appeal, the Collector, Central Excise has assailed the order of Collector (Appeals) allowing Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 55,639.20 under Rule 57H.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of washing powder. The respondents took Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 55,639.20 on the stock of soda ash, demolition, CMC, acid slurry on 1-2-1989 in their RG 23A part II but they filed declaration under Rule 57G on 6-2-1989 with the Assistant Collector, Central Excise. The respondents also filed an application for permission under Rule 57H on 3-2-1989.3. The Additional Collector while adjudicating the case held that Rule 57H cannot be read and applied in isolation as it is a part and parcel of the Modvat scheme; that Rule 57H prescribed the procedure for availment of Modvat credit and even the Modvat credit earned under Rule 57H can be utilised as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 57G; that the party themselves took Modvat credit on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »