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.
Greysham and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1996
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT75TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 28-6-1996/12-7-1996.2. The appellants have filed a stay application for waiver of the pre-deposit of the amount in question.3. Learned Counsel states that in this case, the appellants have filed Modvat declaration but late and therefore, action has been initiated against them and they have been denied the Modvat credit and penalty has also been imposed.4. The appellants had filed their first declaration by sending it by post on 3-6-1994 but the Assistant Collector has noted that the credit had been taken since 1-5-1994 i.e. for a period more than one month before the declaration was stated to have been sent by post. Further, the same was not received in the A.C.'s office. Subsequently, when the show cause notices were issued, the appellants had filed a declaration on 10-11-1994. The A.C. had, however, noted that even this, was filed after the issue of show cause notice dated 11-10-1994.5. The A.C. has t...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. U.P. Co-op Sugar Factories
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT236TriDel
2. Ld. D.R. stated that these are departmental appeals against the order of Commissioner (Appeals).3. The respondents had a distillery unit, Nanauta manufacturer of denatured ethyl alcohol and have taken and availed irregular credit of excise duty under Modvat inasmuch as for the month from August, 94 to December, 94 the party have shown the storage loss of molasses weighing 1588.95 qtls. on which they had already taken the Modvat credit under Rule 57A. The party was not entitled to Modvat credit on the input which was not used in the manufacture of final product. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide his order-in-original No.237/95, dated 31-10-1995 confirmed the demand of Rs. 73,091.70 against the party and held that the Modvat credit was not admissible on the quantity of molasses lost during the storage before its utilization in the manufacture of final product. Being aggrieved, the party preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise Ghaziabad who vide ...
Shahjanand Metal Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT199TriDel
1. In these proceedings, the matter relates to the classification of the Iron and Steel products which the appellants, M/s. Shahjanand Metals, Ahmedabad had called 'Patta/Patti' and the Revenue had sought to classify them as 'strip'. Prior to 1-8-1983, the goods in question were being classified under the then T.I. 26AA(ia), which covered the following :- "Bars, Rods, Coils, Wires, Joists, Girders, Angles, Other than slotted angles channels, other than slotted channels, tees, beams, zeds, trough, pilling and all other rolled, forged or extruded shapes and sections, not otherwise specified." With effect from 1-8-1983, the Iron and Steel Tariff underwent a change and for the erstwhile Item Nos. 26AA, 25 and 26, a new T.I. No. 25, was introduced in the Central Excise Tariff. In the revised Tariff, Item No. 25(8) covered "pieces roughly shapes by rolling or forging of iron and steel, not elsewhere specified. The appellants declared their classification under this sub-item No. (8) of revis...
Ramson Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT61TriDel
1. These are six appeals as per the numbers shown on the respective files. In fact two appeals are filed by the assessee and the other two appeals are filed by the Department. At the first instance the assessee has filed appeals to South Regional Bench at Madras wherein the Registry has given the Nos. E/149-150/87-MAS and on subsequent transfer of the file, Central Registry has given the number for the same appeals as E/2718-2719/87-B. Accordingly the number given by the Central Registry is a substitute for the old numbers given by the Madras Registry and in effect these are only four appeals. Registry could have removed the old numbers. In the circumstances, Registry is directed to delete the old numbers and accordingly both the old numbers given by the Madras Bench have become infructuous and as such are not sustainable. The Department has filed two appeals in E/1920-1921/86-D against the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector.2. Shri P. Das, ld. SDR submitted that in the...
Unipol Plastic Industries Pvt. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT372TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s Unipol Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the product referred to as Card Cans. The appellants were manufacturing Card Cans out of High Density Polythelene and Low Density Polythelene. These Plastic Card Cans were produced out of duty paid excisable goods falling under Heading Nos.39.01 to 39.12 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986). The Plastic Sheets were cut to proper size and holes were drilled as per requirement. Such processed sheets of plastics were further attached with some accessories. They purchased certain articles like top ring of steel and other accessories necessary to assemble at the site of the customer together with the Plastic Sheets manufactured in their factory in the form of Card Cans used for collecting the slivers of cotton or man-made fibre. They declared their classification under Heading No. 3922.90 which covers other articles of plastics and articles of materi...
J.K. Synthetics Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT684TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 2255/88-Boom, dated 26-5-1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants imported two D.G. Sets along with spare parts and accessories and claimed benefit of assessment under Accessory (Condition) Rules, 1963. The lower authorities denied this benefit on the ground that the import of such spare parts and accessories was optional. Hence, this appeal.3. Arguing for the appellants, the Learned Advocate submits that these spare parts have been imported alongwith D.G. sets and their suppliers specifically informed them that spare parts and accessories are specially designed and tailor-made for D.G. sets and that suppliers would not be responsible for atleast for two years [if the] spare parts and accessories other than those supplied by them are used with D.G.sets. These spare parts are not for general use but specially made to work with the impugned goods. In fact, the invoice also indicates the composite price for D....
Regent Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT88TriDel
1. These two appeals are directed against common Order-in-Appeal No.3077/88-BCH of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Since by common order-in-appeal, Collector (Appeals) disposed of two appeals, the appellants were asked to file supplementary appeal which they have now filed alongwith application for condonation of delay. Considering the fact that this is only the supplementary appeal in regard to issue when appeal has already been filed, we condqne the delay and take up the supplementary appeal alongwith appeal originally filed.2. The appellants imported Electromagnetic Clutches and Hose Assemblies. Electromagnetic clutches were assessed under Customs Tariff Heading 85.02(1) for Basic Excise Duty and under Tariff Item 68 for CVD. The appellants claimed CVD under Central Excise Tariff Item 29A(E) as parts of refrigerating and air-conditioning equipment, and in consequence, claimed also exemption under Notification No. 80/62-C.E., dated 24-4-1962.2A. Arguing for the appellants, t...
New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Maini Sundri Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC477; 1997ACJ626; 1996(39)DRJ84
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Shri Raghbir Singh Jain with his wife Maina Sundri Jain and one Smt.SarlIa Devi Jain were coming on a three wheeler scooter on 7th December, 1971 after attending funeral of a relation. The said three wheeler scooter was driven by Shri Harbans Lal. The scooter was coming from R.K.Puram side to Darya Ganj. At about 5.00 Pm when the scooter crossed the crossing of Indian Oil Petrol Pump on Willingdon Cresent near Talkatora Garden, a truck bearing No.DLL-1666 owned by New Delhi Municipal Committee (in short NDMC) coming at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner struck against the three wheeler scooter. The truck was coming on the wrong side of the road. The scooter driver tried to avoid the accident, but due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck Driver this accident occured. Due to this accident Raghbir Singh Jain sustained serious injuries which ultimately caused his death in the hospital. (2) Deceased Raghbir Singh Jain left behind his widow, two sons and...
Hindustan Gas and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT413TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Hindustan Gas & Industries Ltd., Vadodara, the matter relates to the classification of the "Inserts", which are used as one of the raw materials for Concrete Sleepers for the Indian Railways. The appellants brought Iron Scrap from outside and after melting of the Iron Scrap, the "Inserts" were manufactured through the moulds. After the Inserts were taken out of the moulds, they were subjected to the processes of (1) annealing in the oil fired furnace (2) fettling and (3) removing extra burns by grinding etc.Thereafter they were packed in gunny bags and removed to the manufacturers of the R.C.C. Sleepers, where they were used as a raw material. Before 1-3-1986, these Inserts were classifiable under Tariff Item 25(16)(i) of the CET as "Castings of Iron and Steel" and were found eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983. After the switch over to the new Tariff, the Department sought to classify these Inserts under sub-he...
Leader Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT38TriDel
1. These appeals arise out of the orders of the lower authorities denying Modvat credit on various inputs which are discussed serialwise in the following paragraphs with our findings thereon based on the submissions made before us by both the parties.2. These inputs are declared, as being those used in or in relation to the manufacture of valves and cooks. The respective inputs are as follows : 1. Welding Electrodes :- We find that the Assistant Commissioner in the case of welding electrodes has held in the order giving rise to the present appeal that these are in the nature of tools or appliances for denying the Modvat credit. However, it has been shown before us that the same authority, subsequently, has held in his Order No. 108/D/AC/89, dated [10-11-1989] on further examination of the issue, that these welding rods are used for filling up cavity in the castings and are consumable items meriting to be - inputs for Modvat credit purposes. Therefore, on the original authorities' own ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »