Delhi Court September 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.
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ultra Business Machine
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT209TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved for our consideration is whether the peripheral devices when cleared as such are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 254/77-C.E., dated 22-7-1977. Under Tariff Item No. 33DD of the Central Excise Tariff, the description of the goods was as under : "Computers (including Central Processing Units & Peripheral Devices ) all sorts." In exemption Notification No. 254/77,dated 22-7-1977 computers falling under Item No. 33-DD of the Tariff were exempt from duty when sold to an educational and research institution. This exemption was subject to the condition that the manufacturer produces before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise a certificate issued by the duly authorised officer of the Government of India in the Department of Electronics that the institution receiving such goods was an institution approved as an educational and research institution by the Department of Electronics. The Collector of Central Excise...
A.R. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT495TriDel
1. By the captioned appeal the appellants have agitated two issues. The first issue is the denial of Modvat credit on certain goods as adhesive. The second issue is the demand of duty for which a credit was wrongly taken. Though the goods were received in the factory for repairs and were cleared finally after debiting duty in PLA.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper tubes. The appellants are availing the benefit of inputs duty under the Modvat scheme and filed a declaration on 31-3-1994 declaring adhesive against serial No. 3 classifiable under sub-heading 35.05. The department alleged that the appellants availed Modvat credit on Vimsol under subheading 3905.10 which was not mentioned in their declaration filed under Rule 57G and therefore issued a show cause notice to the appellants on 28-4-1994 asking them to explain as to why the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 30,802/- for non-submission of declaration prior to 19-12-1994 and for ...
Applied Research and Engg. (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT494TriDel
1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated, 9-2-1988 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Pune. The Collector, Central Excise, in his order, had held: "The issue to be decided in this case is whether the two units taken together can be treated as an industrial unit. It is ascertained from the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Industries that for the purpose of granting registration as a small scale 'Industrial unit' if a manufacturer had more than one factory in the same district, the value of plant and machinery in all these units is clubbed and all such factories are regarded as a single industrial unit. Moreover, in this case, as Applied Research and Engineering Private Ltd., is a partner in ARE Educational Equipment, M/s. Applied Research & Engineering is the manufacturer in both the units and hence value of the clearances from the two factories belonging to the same manufacturer can be clubbed in terms of Notification No....
Uma Sons Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT540TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 27-11-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta.2. The appellant imported 50 Cartons of Zip in Coil No. 5 (Black and Brown) of Taiwan origin from a supplier in Taiwan. The 50 Cartons contained one lakh yards of Zip in Coil. The Clearing Agent of the Appellant submitted Bill of Entry dated 3-5-1990 and other import documents declaring CIF value as US $ 5.70 per hundred yards. The Additional Collector issued show cause notice suggesting valuation of US $ 7.50 per hundred yards CIF i.e., Rs. 1,27,659.57 for one lakh yards. Three REP licences produced covered Rs. 97,021.00. Thus it was alleged there was shortfall in licence. Notice also proposed confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) and penal action under Section 112 of the Act. The appellant resisted the notice. The Additional Collector passed the impugned order determining value at US $ 6.65 per hundred yards and s...
Amod Stampings Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT574TriDel
1. Case called. None appeared on behalf of the appellants nor we find any request for adjournment. On going through the issue involved in this case, we felt that the matter can be disposed of on merits in the absence of the party. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri G.D. Sharma, learned JDR for the Revenue.2. Shri Sharma submitted that dispute relates to determination of value in respect of goods under Rule 6(b) of the Valuation Rules. According to the party the goods were to be valued in terms, of Rule 6(b)(2) of the Valuation Rules since goods were captively consumed. According to the department since the party has sold similar goods .directly to the customers and similarly goods were captively consumed the price at which the goods are sold in public that price is to be taken as basis in determining the price of the goods which were captively consumed. In other words, Rule 6(b)(1) of the Valuation Rules is applicable in determining the value as comparable i...
Ahmedabad Advance Mills Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT172TriDel
1. Against the impugned order dated 31-12-1987 the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad confirmed demand of Rs. 34,18,289.90 out of the demand of Rs. 38,42,721.35 made on the appellant in the show cause notice and also levied penalty of Rs. 5,00,000.00 on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, the Rules).2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cotton fabrics and manmade fabrics falling under Tariff Items 19 and 22 of First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975 (for short, the Act). Appellant was filing classification lists and price lists under RT 12 returns from time to time. Appellant was following self-removal procedure. The Preventive Officers of Headquarters, Ahmedabad on 2-4-1985 visited the premises of the appellant and verified the records and found that appellant had issued debit notes for extra amounts and collected the same from certain customers for certain kinds of cotton fabrics over and above the invoice value in th...
Shri Ram Steels Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT71TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Indore, dated 9-11-1993.2. Learned representative of the appellants stated that the Collector has erroneously dismissed their appeal on the ground of non-compliance with Section 35F as they had in view of their rejection of the stay application, paid the amount in question by making an appropriate entry in RG 23A Part II and had given intimation to the Collector (Appeals) vide photocopy of the registered acknowledgements/documents placed at Annexure 22 (Page 45) which shows the date of the registry as 25-5-1993 and its receipt by the Collector (Appeals) office on 31-5-1993 whereas the Order-in-Appeal has been passed in November, 1993. Perhaps the document was not placed before the Collector by mistake but the fact is that they have paid, this is even otherwise evident from a copy of RG 23A Part II filed by them with their appeal memorandum which was enclosure to their letter dated 23-5-1993 addressed to the Collector place...
N.P. Textile Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT493TriDel
1. These appeals are directed against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II to the following effect :- (1) Directing M/s. The New Vinod Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs. 16,690.56/- as excise duty under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, the Rules) read with Section 11 A(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (for short, the Act) paid short on 13,622.24 sq. mtrs. of man-made fabrics. (2) Holding that 1335.30 sq. mtrs. fabrics seized from M/s. N.P. Textile (N.P.T., for short) valued at Rs. 73,430.00, 4146.87 sq. mtrs. of fabrics seized from M/s. Shree Mahavir Textile Mills (S.M.T.M., for short) valued at Rs. 1,96,262/-, 6400.88 sq. mtrs. seized from M/s. Sehgal Silk Mills (S.S.M., for short) valued at Rs. 2,94,616/- and 1539.20 sq. mtrs. of fabrics seized from M/s. Jamnagar Woollen Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. (J.W.T.M., for short) valued at Rs. 72,800/- are liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Rules. (3) Directing those concerns ...
Reflect Optics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT637TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the order dated 29-8-1988, passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay.2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the imported goods which has been described as 'Opthalmic Rough Blanks' are leviable to nil C.V.D. under Notification No.234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982 in SI. No. 7 of the Schedule which reads "Spectacles, Spectacle lenses and spectacle frames".3. The appellants are not present to submit their case. They have requested the case to be decided on merits.4. We have heard the learned DR. The learned DR submits that the item in question is opthalmic rough blanks and they have not been opthalmically worked. The item is required to undergo several processes like grinding, polishing, curvature fixation for focal purposes and it is only thereafter the item would be known in the market as spectacle lenses. It is his contention that opthalmic rough blanks cannot be construed and understood as spectacle lenses in terms of...
Herbertsons Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT553TriDel
1. Appellants manufacture aerated waters which are sold through net-work of dealers. They had filed price list in the required proforma for flavoured drinks as well as for Soda which was approved by the jurisdictional Officer. Subsequently, the Departmental Officers found that certain other charges were collected by the appellants from wholesale dealers which charges were not disclosed in the price list filed by them. After conducting investigation and recording statements of certain dealers and factory officials, show cause notice dated 17-1-1985 was issued alleging that differential duty amounting to Rs. 16,54,137.52 was payable by the appellants. After hearing the assessee, Collector confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 15,73,132.17. He imposed penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-on the assessee under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He ordered confiscation of the Plant and machinery of the assessee but permitted its redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 2 lakhs. The present appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »