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 Central Excise Vs. Poysha Indl. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT445TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, dated 22-11-1994. A notice for hearing was duly issued to the Respondent but neither any appearance was caused nor there was any other communication requesting for adjournment or otherwise. Hence, we perused the records and heard the Ld. D.R.2. Ld. D.R. stated that in this case the respondents were clearing T.P.strips of width 3" and above as waste and scrap and paying duty accordingly. But on enquiry it was found that the respondents sells these tin cuttings to small traders who manufacture sieves, buttons, toys, kajal ki dibbi etc. Therefore, the department considered that the goods cleared were actually small sheets/cut pieces which could not be treated as waste and scrap. The A.C. heard the matter and taking into account Section Note 6(a) of Section XV governing the Chapter 72 observed that the cuttings and trimmings in question could not be considered waste and scrap. ...
Zenith Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT367TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Zenith Ltd. (Indian Tool Mfgrs.Division), the matter relates to the classification of Drill Blanks.The appellants had contended that the Drill Blanks merited classification under Item No. 68 while the Revenue had sought to classify the goods under Item No. 51A(iii) of the old Central Excise Tariff.2. The matter was posted for hearing on 11-9-1996. The appellants had prayed for a decision on merits. On behalf of the respondents/Revenue, Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, briefly stated the facts of the case and submitted that as the Drill Blanks had the essential character of tools, they were classifiable under Item No. 51A.3. We have carefully considered the matter. The Blanks manufactured by the appellants from imported high speed steel were sold as Drill Blanks. Although the imported high speed steel was subjected to various processes of grinding, edge-sharpening and grooving, they were not ready to be fitted into hand tools, machine tools or other tools for wor...
Collector of Customs Vs. U.P. Brassware Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT625TriDel
1. In these Revenue appeals question that falls for determination is whether the term "Copper in crude form", for the period prior to 1-3-1981, when copper scrap was also added as a taxable item under the then Tariff Heading 26A, would cover copper scrap. The Revenue contend that even prior to 1-3-1981 when specific entry covering copper scrap was inserted in Tariff Item 26A, the copper in any crude form covers copper scrap also.3. Ld. D.R. arguing for the Revenue submits that the term 'crude' denotes naturally raw, unprepared, not used, not finished, etc. Copper scrap being a material not in any form is necessarily required to be reduced to a required order or form. Therefore, copper scrap is nothing but copper in crude form.4. We have heard ld. D.R. and perused the records of the case.Admittedly, copper scrap was made dutiable w.e.f. 1-3-1981 by inserting a specific entry for copper scrap in the Heading 26A as it then existed. The question, therefore, is whether even for the period ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Electronic and Engg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT434TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the only point for our consideration is, whether in case of any violation when goods are received under Chapter X Procedure of the Central Excise Rules, duty had to be paid by the user of the goods or by the manufacturer who had manufactured the goods received by the user under Chapter X Procedure.2. The respondents M/s. Electric & Engg. Co. have desired that the matter be decided on merits. On behalf of the appellants/Revenue, Shri P.K. Jain, SDR, referred to the provisions of Notification No.56/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978 and submitted that it is clearly mentioned in the notification that in default of not furnishing the relevant information, the L-6 licensee had to pay the portion of the duty which is exempt under that notification.3. We have carefully considered the matter. Under Notification No.56/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978 the room air conditioners were partly exempted from duty subject to the various conditions as contained in that notificat...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kumar Textiles
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT414TriDel
1. The short point for determination in the present appeal is whether handloom cess shall be leviable on processed fabrics when cess has already been paid on grey fabrics.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein are engaged in processing of grey fabrics. Grey fabrics are received by the respondents and after dyeing they are sent back to the persons who sent the grey fabrics to them. The Assistant Collector alleged that since the respondents herein are manufacturing processed fabrics and, therefore, cess should be levied and collected on processed fabrics irrespective of whether cess has already been paid on grey fabrics. In appeal, the learned Collector (Appeals) went a stage further, holding that cess of differential amount equal to that payable on processed fabrics minus the amount already paid on grey fabrics should be collected and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for readjudication. Against this order, the Department has filed the present appe...
Shri Ram Refrigeration Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT427TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Madras dated 20-1-1987.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants had imported copper tubes (ASTMB-68 DHP) specially designed for use in refrigeration industries which was classifiable according to them under Heading 84.15 and not under Heading 74.07/08(1).3. The Department has classified them under the latter heading but according to the appellants this heading applies to only general purpose copper tubes and pipes and not to the items in question which are parts of refrigerators and refrigerating equipment falling under Heading 84.15. Similarly the additional duty is required to be levied under Tariff Item 29A(3) and not under 26A(3). Further they were also entitled for exemption under Customs Notification No. 45/83. Hence, the appellants had filed a refund claim which had been rejected by the Assistant Collector without granting them a personal hearing.4. Necessary documentary evidence in the form of catalogue and other ...
Walker (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT878TriDel
1. The captioned two appeals have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order passed by the Id. Collector, Central Excise. The Id. Collector, Central Excise, in his order, had held : "I confirm the demand of duty to the extent of Rs. 1,03,405.12. The seized goods, viz. 6491 pairs of footwear valued at Rs. 6,18,750/- are liable for confiscation. These goods have, however, been released provisionally on execution of the B-11 bond for equal value with a security in shape of bank guarantee of Rs. 60,000/- and with the condition to clear the goods on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. As the goods are, therefore, not available for confiscation, I impose a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation. I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on M/s. Walker (India) Ltd., Mumbai. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Shri Karim B. Jiwani, the Director of the company." 2. The facts of the case are that the Preventive Officers of Central Excise visited the fac...
Flash Labs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT782TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 19-6-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The brief facts are that the appellants herein filed two refund claims for the period 1-4-1989 to 21-12-1989 and 1-4-1990 to 4-12-1990. Both of which were received in the jurisdictional Assistant Collector's office on 18-6-1991. The ground on which the refund was claimed, was that the Commissioner (Appeals) by an order dated 31-12 -1990 directed against the earlier adjudication Order No. 247-CE/88, dated 26-12-1988 which has given decision in their favour, had held that the appellants will be liable for exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appeals will not be hit by provisions of Para 7 of that notification which says that exemption will not apply to clearances and branded goods of a person who is not eligible for exemption under that notification which is meant for units in the small scale industries. The jurisdictiona...
Collector of Customs Vs. Moorco (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT226TriDel
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order dated 26-4-1988 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Customs, Madras, by which he set aside the lower authorities order assessing the imported goods declared in the Bill of Entry as "springs for use with valves" under Heading 98.06 read with Customs Notification No. 69/87 and rejecting the claim for the benefit of Customs Notification No. 69/87. The Assistant Collector has taken a view that the items in question are designed for use in valves.He has taken a view that by virtue of Note 1(G) of Section XVI of CTA read with Note 2 of Section XV "Springs" are excluded from Chapter 84, and hence they were not fall within Heading 98.06.2. Before the Collector the appellants contended that they were importing spring sub-assembly consisting of spring and match machined washers. With a view to reduce the content of imported components they had developed sufficient know-how to manufacture the match machined washers indigenously. Hence only the springs...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)305; 64(1996)DLT237
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) These are two writ petitions bearing Nos. 133/96 and 386/96. They are being taken up together as the parties in the two petitions are the same and the properties which have been subjected to the property tax are also the same. Furthermore, common questions of law and facts are likely to arise while disposing of the said petitions. (2) The petitioner through the present writ petitions have sought an injunction from this Court restraining the respondent from giving any effect to the demand bill Nos. 3 and 6 both dated July 14, 1995 raised on account of the property tax pertaining to the properties bearing Nos. WZ-5 and WZ-11, Shakur Basti, Delhi respectively. They further want through the present writ petitions quashment of the assessment order pertaining to the year 1995-96 with a direction to the respondent not to raise any demand on account of the property tax in respect of the above said properties. Corporation of Delhi. (3) Learned counsel for the parties made a...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »