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.
Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Consolidated Builders and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT713TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order dated 11-7-1987 passed by the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals), in his order had held : "4.I have considered the matter and am convinced that the appellants have a case on merits. I find that the appellants have made jute bags out of jute fabrics on which appropriate central excise duty and cess duty at the specific rate, both have been paid by them. Fabrics, be it sacking or Hessian, having included the sacking/hessian bags there is no scope to charge once again the cess duty on the jute bags when jute fabrics are both central excise and cess duty paid. The appellants are correct when they state that if further cess duty is levied under the circumstances on jute bags, it would tantamount to double taxation of cess levy. Hence, the Asstt. Collector's action demanding further cess duty on jute bags cannot be endorsed." 2. The facts of case, in brief, are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of jute ...
Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT752TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the assessable value of vegetable products manufactured by the appellants herein should be revised upwards so as to include rebate which was granted on excise duty subject to conditions of Notification 115/86 which prescribed use of certain specified raw materials in certain percentages. The appellants were availing of partial exemption of excise duty on vegetable products in terms of Notification No. 115/86 for increased use of cotton seed oil and rice bran oil in the manufacture thereof.During the period from 1-3-1986 to 15-9-1986, they did not pass on the benefit of the above Notification to the buyers of vegetable products.In other words, they charged duty @ 10% adv. from their customers but they paid 10% minus the exemption permissible in terms of the Notification. Since the Department was of the view that the difference between the amounts that they charged from customers as excise duty and the amount actually paid was part of the ...
Indian thermit Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT549TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order-in-appeal dated 30-11-1994 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad.Proceedings were initiated by a show cause notice dated 4-10-1989 against the appellants alleging that credit of Rs. 1,39,752/- Was wrongly taken on the basis of Bills and Challans and without any proof of duty payment in contravention of Rules 57A and 57G of Central Excise Rules. There was also a charge that credit has been taken twice on inputs received on Gate Pass No. 26, dated 30-4-1989. This was sought to be recovered under Rule 57-1. A second show cause notice dated 23-2-1990 was also issued for reversal of credit of Rs. 19,111.58 taken on Aluminium ingots on 2-9-1990 without proof of payment of duty that on the consignment received from M/s. Mauji Lal Sons & Company. Both the show cause notices were adjudicated on 18-2-1991 by the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the demand in both. This order was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Nav Bharat Paper Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT501TriDel
1. By the present appeal, the Commissioner, Central Excise has assailed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that electrical transformer and electronics panel board are not eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein procured electrical transformers and electronics controlled panel boards from the market and claimed Modvat credit on these items under Rule 57Q. The Department alleged that these two items are neither capital goods nor accessories or components and therefore, were not covered by the provisions of Rule 57Q. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents herein asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit should not be denied.3. Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, the learned DR appearing for the appellant Commissioner submits that transformers and electronics controlled panel boards are neither capital goods nor accessories or components or goods used in the manufacture o...
Super Syncotex (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT56TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Original dated 7-11-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. The Learned Collector has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 12,55,223.90 being the differential Central Excise duty payable on the yarn cleared by the assessee by misdeclaring its composition under Section 11A read with 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, being the duty not paid by the assessee on the mill neps manufactured and captively consumed during the period 1-3-1986 to 20-12-1989. He has directed for confiscasion under Rule 173Q of mill neps weighing 625.5 kgs. valued at Rs. 4,728.78 and has granted an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He has imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The facts of the case leading to adjudication are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz.various types of textiles. Acting upon intelligence, the Central Excise Officers pa...
Bajaj Sevashram Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT726TriDel
1. This matter relates to INPUT MODVAT SCHEME and the relevant Rules are Rule 57A, 57G, 57H and 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The amount of credit which is in dispute is Rs. 2,11,564/- which has been reversed Under Protest by the appellants vide Entry No. 128 dated 27-6-1990 made in RG-23A Part-II Register.3. The appellant filed its first declaration under the MODVAT Scheme i.e. under Rule 57G on 4-7-1986 i.e. soon after introduction of the scheme. This declaration, inter alia, covered Glass Bottles of various sizes; Gum; Adhesives; Caps; and Tapes. In this declaration, the finished product was shown, inter alia, as "Brahmi Amla Hair Oil" and "Jasmine Hair Oil", both classifiable under Heading and sub-heading 3305.10 of the Schedule to the CETA.4. The entry under the above sub-heading No. 3305.10 (as it stood at the relevant time) read as under :- Preparations for use on the hair, including brilliantines, perfumed hair oils, hair lotions, pomades and creams, hair dyes (in ...
Zinc-o-India Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT373TriDel
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether Modvat credit can be availed on the strength of original invoices when a Trade Notice prescribed a procedure to be followed in such cases.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants got certain inputs.The "U duplicate invoices were misplaced. The appellants took credit on the strength of original invoice. The Department alleged that there was a Trade Notice in which the procedure in such cases was set out and only such parties as followed the procedure set out in the Trade Notice could be allowed the benefit only if they followed the procedure.3. Shri J.S. Agarwal, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that Rule 57G(2A) provides that a manufacturer can take credit of the inputs received on the basis of the original invoice if the duplicate copy of the invoice has been lost in transit. He submits that this condition was subject to satisfaction of the Assistant Collector.The ld. Counsel submits that ...
Proto Machine Tools Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT681TriDel
1. By the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the order of Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), in his order, had held "that in the application under consideration, the tool bits H.S.S. are designed for use in the machine tools. These are sold as mentioned earlier in standard sizes and the only work left to be carried out on this is giving edge. This is left to the customers which operation is done by the customer himself, it is clearly evident that the bits are classifiable under Tariff Item 51A(iii). They cannot be classifiable under Tariff Item 68. Mere giving of an edge does not take the product out of the purview of Tariff Item 51 A(iii) and bring it under Tariff Item 68. I would therefore, set aside the orders of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise Division V in regard to the matter of classification of the goods and the refund sanctioned by him. The application is allowed." 2. Shri Shiraz P. Rustomjee, the learned Advocate ap...
Hans Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)268; AIR1997Delhi68; 1996(38)DRJ371
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a petition under section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The facts as reflected in the petition are as under:- The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, entered into a contract with respondent Delhi Development Authority for the work of construction of multi- storeyed building at plot No.1,2 and. 5 of the District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Work was awarded to the petitioner on February 13, 1990 and was to be completed within a period of six months from the date of the commencement of the work which was to be reckoned from the 10th day of the award of the work. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the work could not be completed within the stipulated date viz. August 22, 1990. It is however, the case of the petitioner that the work was delayed because of the various hindrances created by the respondent in the execution of the work. The concerned Executive Engineer by letter dated April 9, 1992 granted provisional extension of time for...
P.V. Narasimha Rao Vs. State (Central Bureau of Investigation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)729; 63(1996)DLT529; 1996(38)DRJ273
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) Aggrieved by the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, passed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short referred to as 'the Code'), adding the petitioner as an accused for being a party to the criminal conspiracy of cheating the complainant Lakhubhai Pathak, under Section 120B/420 Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the same. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner, let me go through the facts of the case. (2) The complainant Lakhubhai Pathak is a resident of United Kingdom and is of Indian origin. He is stated to be a businessman running a firm in the business of food processing. In 1983, he is alleged to have come into contact with Chandraswami and Kailash Nath Aggarwal, both of whom made him believe that Chandraswami had a great influence in the official and political circles in India and was capable of getting any job through. Both of them suggested that the contract for supply of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »