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.
Travancore-cochIn Chemicals Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT133TriDel
1. The appellants herein imported one consignment of Globe valves for Chlorine Services from West Germany. They also presented a detailed write-up based on which the valves were classified under Heading 84.61(1) of the Customs Tariff Act and assessed to duty accordingly.The importers claimed re-assessment under Heading 84.61(2) which was denied on the ground that the valves are not wholly made of corrosion resistant materials and that it was only such valves which fall for classification under Heading 84.61 (2).2. The case of the appellants is that although the valve body and bonnet are made of forged carbon steel; still the valves are lined with corrosive resistant material such/as Hastelloy-C. The parts which are directly coming in contact with chlorine are made of this corrosion resistant material such as sealing surface in body coated with Hastelloy-C, lower steam made of Hastelloy-C, cone of Hastelloy-C, gland packing with teflon impregnated blue asbestos and bonnet gasket of IT ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Fine Prints (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT296TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) holding that the classification of the said goods by the Assistant Collector under T.I. 4818.13 is not correct and that the goods are classifiable under T.I. 4818.19.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of paper, paper board and paper board pouches for agarbatti, etc. On examination of the classification list filed by the respondents, the Assistant Collector alleged that paper board pouches manufactured by the respondents herein were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 4818.13 and not under Chapter sub-heading 4818.19 as claimed by the respondents herein. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents herein asking them to explain as to why the printed paper pouches manufactured by them should not be classified under Tariff Heading 4818.13. The respondents contended that pouches and catch covers manufactured by the respondents...
Escorts Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT459TriDel
1. These appeals have also been filed against a common order dated 24-2-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Patiala denying Modvat credit under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules on steel crucibles/silicon carbide crucibles, and fibre glass filter cloth/mesh holding that these materials fall under the category of excluded inputs, under Rule 57A being in the nature of apparatus, equipment, etc. These were, therefore, held to be not inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of pistons and piston rings which are the final products of the appellants, herein.2. We have heard Sh. P.S. Bedi, ld. Consultant for the appellants, who contended that the matter now stands settled by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Union Carbide India and Ors. v. Commissioner in Final Order No. 1487 to 1502/96-NB, dated 14-6-1996, 1996 (15) RLT 144.Ld S.D.R. Sh. Mewa Singh ap...
Upper India Steel Mfg. and Engg. Vs. Commr. of C. E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT97TriDel
1. Appellants are engaged in manufacture of iron and steel products falling under Chapters 72 and 73 of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944*.They are availing of Modvat credit of duty under Section 57A of Central Excise Rules on inputs used in the manufacture of their final products.These inputs include Thermo couple tips, mini tips, and clay graphite stopper. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner held that these are not eligible inputs for Modvat credit as they are covered by the exclusion clause under Rule 57A according to which for the purpose of Rule 57A "input" does not include machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. The Assistant Commissioner held that these are parts of the machinery, namely, furnace and hence ineligible for Modvat credit. These orders of the Assistant Commissioner were challenged before Commissioner (Appeals), who passed the present com...
M.A. Exports Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT81TriDel
1. By the present ROM application, the applicants have contended that there have been two errors in the Final Order No. 27/95-C, dated 10-1-1995. Shri R.S. Dinkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that the Tribunal raised one point about leviable of Additional Duty of Customs by classifying old and used tyres under sub-heading 4011.99 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; that this question 14/871 has been raised and not decided; that another question raised before the Tribunal was whether the goods are eligible to be imported under OGL; that the Tribunal held that the goods would fall under Appendix 2(B) requiring an import licence; that the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports on 15th May, 1992 clarified that those items which were shifted earlier from restricted list from Appendix 2(B) to Appendix 3(A) are freely importable under the Import Export Policy and therefore, there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record which needs to be rectified; t...
Dhan Prakash Gupta Vs. Jai NaraIn Goel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)36; 64(1996)DLT106; (1997)115PLR14; 1996RLR400
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against a judgment and decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiff filed for recovery of Rs. 660.00 including interest on security deposit of Rs. 6000.00 from the defendant/revision petitioner for the period from 1st May 1980 to February 1983. (2) The relevant facts which have led to the plaintiff of this revision petition are as under: ACCORDING to the defendant/revision petitioner, Jai Narain Goel, plaintiff/respondent was tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 35.00 in respect of entire ground floor of Premises No. Vll/339 (Old)/VII/927 (New), Anaj Mandi situated in Khasra No. 642 Mauza Chandrawali @ Shahdara, Delhi-32. Plaintiff/respondent surrendered his tenancy rights in respect of the back godown portion and the defendant/petitioner agreed to let out the remaining portion on a lease of 99 years on monthly rent of Rs. 21.00 . Lease Deed (Ex. D-l) and Agreement (Mark 'A') were executed on 27th November, 1974. Lease Deed was got regist...
A.K. Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)801; 63(1996)DLT486; 1996(38)DRJ395
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a petition under section 276 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1955, for the grant of probate of the will executed by the deceased Dr. B.P. Pal. The facts as appearing from the petition are as follows :-(2) Dr. B.P. Pal, a bachelor, died on September 14, 1989, at New Delhi, at the age of 85 years. His parents predeceased him and he is not survived by any blood relations. At the time of his death he was possessed of both movable and immovable properties. Except residential house at Shimla, the other properties are his self acquired properties. The Shimla properly was bequeathed to him by his sister-in-law Mrs. Shukla Hari Dass and in respect thereof probate has already been granted in favor of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. Dr. Pal left behind a will dated January 28, 1987 being his last will and testament and by virtue of which he bequeathed his properties both movable and immovable in favor of various persons. The petitioner he...
Amrit Lal Vs. Jagpal Singh Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT621; 1996RLR392
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This revision petition has been filed against an order of dismissal of eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) The facts giving an occasion to the present revision petition are as under: Undisputedly, the respondent is tenant of the petitioner in respect of two rooms, one kitchen, one bath and front and back covered portico, garage on the ground(3) The matter was hotly contested before the learned Trialourt. The learned Additional Rent Controller took the view that the petitioner was the owner/ landlord of the suit premises; and the premises was let out for residential purpose. However, the learned Additional Rent Controller took the view that the petitioner had failed to prove that he bona fide required the suit premises and dismissed the eviction petition. (4) Feeling aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed on the ground that the evidence had not been seen in the light of proper perspect...
Eveready Industries India Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT137TriDel
1. The appellants in this case manufacture Flash Lights. One of their inputs is miniature bulbs which they were buying from Silvania Laxman and were availing of Modvat Credit facility of the duty paid on the bulbs. Gate pass No. 467, dated 31-7-1992 was lost in transit. The goods were duly received and entered in the RG 23A Part I Register on 28-8-1992. Therefore they approached the suppliers to obtain and sent to them a copy of the gate pass duly attested by the jurisdictional Range Officer. On receipt of this copy the appellants took credit in RG 23A Part II Register on 31-12-1992. The jurisdictional officer of the appellants factory noticed these cases when scrutinising the RT 12 Returns for the month of December, 1992. After issue of a show cause notice the credit was denied by the original authority vide his order dated 20-5-1993 on the observation that in terms of the Board's instructions dated 15-12-1992 attested gate passes were not the valid documents for taking Modvat Credit...
Gujarat State Export Corporation Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT748TriDel
1. In the present appeal the dispute centres round whether the goods imported and described as press mould plates are classifiable under the then T.I. 73.15 as stainless steel or under the then 84.60 as metal.2. The appellants have requested for consideration of their case on merits. They have also cited and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 240 wherein this Tribunal after going through the literature, catalogue and technical write-up, by majority of decision, held that "A reading of Tariff Item 84.60 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 reveals that besides speaking of 'moulding boxes' for metal foundry, it takes within its abmit moulds of 'other types' also in relation to certain products; inter alia of artificial plastic materials. This indicates that besides the conventional concept of moulds, such as the cavities, contours or hollows, insofar as products of ceramic pastes, cement, rubber or artificial plastic mate...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »