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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jyoti Electrical Motor Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1117TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the goods Rotors and Stators. The Respondent, M/s.Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of Die Cast Rotors and Stators. These Rotors and Stators were used in the manufacture of power driven pumps. The assessee had claimed exemption in respect of these Rotors and Stators under Notification No.64/86-C.E., dated 10-2-86 (as amended) on the ground that their Die Cast Rotors and Stators were parts of power driven pumps, which were primarily designed for handling water. The Power Driven Pumps were centrifugal pumps (Horizental). The Revenue had classified these Die Cast Rotors and Stators under Heading No. 85.03, which covered, "parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of Heading Nos. 85.01 and 85.02". Heading No. 85.01 covered, "Electric motors and generators (excluding generating sets, Electric generator sets and rotary Converters were classifiable under Heading N...
Sundram Fasteners Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT578TriDel
1. Arguing for the appellants Shri Nambirajan submitted that appellants have requested the Assistant Collector to classify 32 items of bolts, nuts and screws under Tariff Item 68 on the ground that they perform fastening functions only incidental and, therefore, they are classifiable under Tariff Item 68. Assistant Collector negatived the contention and held that these items are classifiable under Item 52.Shri Nambirajan submitted that although they succeeded before the Collector (Appeals), on appeal filed by the department the Tribunal held that these items are classifiable under Tariff Item 52 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. He submitted that he is not questioning the classification of the product in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Plasmac Machine Mfg. Co., Ltd., v.Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 16} wherein it was held that the bar nuts for fixing the platens at appropriate distances classifiable under Tariff Item 52 of ers...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Star Metal and Tubes Corpn.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT533TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the classification of the products of copper which the respondent M/s. Star Metal & Tubes Corpn. have classified as pipes and tubes of copper falling under sub-item No. (9) of Item No. 26A of the old Central Excise Tariff and the Department had classified the said products as shells and blanks for pipes and tubes; hollow products of copper classifiable under sub-item No. (10) of the Item No. 26A of the Tariff.The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay on the basis of the Deputy Chief Chemist's report ISI specification, certificate groups and documentary evidence on record had held that the product manufactured by M/s. Star Metal & Tubes Corpn. were pipes and tubes and that the exemption from excise duty in excess of 9% in terms of Notification No.199/84-C.E., dated 17-9-1984 had been correctly claimed. This order had been confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.Among other grounds the Co...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Saga Windel Engineers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1158TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of wound Rotors and Stators fixed with the shaft of the pump portion to make the mono block pump. The respondent M/s. Saga Windel Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad were engaged in the manufacture of Rotors and Stators. They paid excise duty at appropriate rates on the Rotors and Stators and when these Rotors and Stators were fixed with the shaft to make the mono block pump, the duty was again charged as leviable on electric motors with set-off of the duty already paid on Rotors and Stators. Afterwards, they filed a refund claim on the ground that no excise duty was payable on the stage when the Rotors and Stators were used in the manufacture of mono block pump. It was their contention that electric motors as commercially understood does not come into existence and that once the Rotors and Stators are fixed on the Shaft of the pump it is the pump and not the motor which come into existence. It is seen that th...
Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT241TriDel
1. The appellants, herein, manufacture soap falling under Chapter 34 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They opted to avail of money credit scheme under Central Excise Rules designed to encourage use of unconventional oils in the manufacture of soap. Notification No. 192/87 came to be issued under Rule 57K of Central Excise Rules for the purpose on 12-8-1987. It specified the inputs, namely, vegetable oils, whether or not subjected to processes of hydrogenation or hydrolysis, and the rate of money credit fixed for each such oil. One of the conditions for the money credit is that in cases where the processes of hydrogenation or hydrolysis are done outside the factory manufacturing soap, the credit shall be allowed, inter alia, only if the procedure that may be specified by the Commissioner to establish the identity of the vegetable oils from which such processes oil has been made, is followed and only if the manufacturer produces such documents as may be required by the Commissioner i...
Narender Singh Vs. District Collection Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR52]; (1997)ILLJ274Del
ORDERRule D.B. 1. The petitioner seeks issue of directions to respondent No. 1 directing respondents to execute the Recovery Certificate dated October 19, 1989 in favor of the petitioner. 2. On February 1, 1989, Labour Court made an Award in favor of the petitioner and in terms of the Award a certificate dated October 19, 1989 was issued certifying that Rs. 6014/- are due to petitioner from Respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded compliance of the order dated February 1, 1989 and payment of the amount as per recovery certificate. Since the recovery certificate was not executed for considerable time, the petitioner filed this petition in August, 1990 seeking the relief. 3. It appears that the recovery certificate was issued on the basis of award which was passed ex parte against respondent No. 2. When the petition came up for hearing before this court on August 29, 1991, it was represented for the respondents that an application for setting aside the award had been filed a...
Deepika Chaudhary Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)148; 64(1996)DLT503; 2003(39)DRJ491
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition is directed against respondents 1 to 3 to declare the result of the petitioner for the Examination of M.A.(Pol. Science) held in April/May, 1996 and for direction to respondents 4 and 5 to extend the time and not to cancel her candidature for M.Phil Course for which the petitioner has been duly admitted. (2) The Jawahar Lal Nehru University (for short JNU) invited applications for admission to M.Phil Course for which the petitioner applied(3) Notice to show cause was issued on August 16, 1996. The reply has since been filed on behalf of Jnu by acting Registrar Shri K.Kishore. No reply was necessary by University of Delhi, respondents 1,2 and 3 as the result of the petitioner has since been declared on August 21, 1996. The stand taken by respondent 4 and 5 is that the petitioner has not been given any admission so far, thereforee, the question of cancellation of the same does not arise. The deposit of first Installment of fees does not give automa...
Rattan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT727; 1996(39)DRJ421
Arun Kumar, J.(1) Vide our order dated 25th September 1996 this appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside. The reasons in support of the said order follow hereinafter. (2) Deceased Guddu was a rickshaw puller. He used to sleep in a car parking area near the Old Lajpat Rai Market, Red Fort, Delhi. Other rickshaw pullers also used to sleep in the same car parking. Devaria Pathak @ Chhotu and Rattan @ Kalu were two said other rickshaw pullers. They belonged to the same native place as that of deceased Guddu. It is District Damoh in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Guddu was found dead in the morning of 4th May, 1990. The Fir was registered at 7.15 A.M. on 4th May, 1990 on the basis of a statement of one Ashwani, who owned a fleet of forty cycle rickshaws and who used to give cycle rickshaw on hire to the rickshaw pullers like Guddu, Devaria Pathak and Rattan etc. In his statement, i.e. Rukka Ex. Public Witness -4/A, Ashwani stated that Rattan @ Kalu, a...
Nichrome Metal Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT448TriDel
1. These are 11 appeals filed by M/s. Nichrome Metal Works involving common issues and, therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The point to be considered in these cases is whether following charges are deductible in determining the assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared by the assessee : 3. When the matter was posted for hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, they have requested to decide the case on merits based on their written submissions. In the written submissions they have submitted that the Assistant Collector has disallowed the following items in the contract price: 4. It was submitted by them that the Collector (Appeals) while upholding the decision of the order passed by the Assistant Collector relied upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Bombay Tyre International to observe that Sl. Nos. (i) to (v) as aforesaid to boost or enrich the marketability of the product, as these are in the n...
Collector of Customs Vs. Photo Equip
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT436TriDel
1. Ld. DR stated that the respondents had imported Ring Tube (Xenon Flash Tube) and claimed clearance under OGL Appendix 6(1) as parts on one hand and at concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.232/83, dated 18-3-1983 as electronic tubes falling under Sr. No. 3(a) and (b) on the other.2. On examination, it was observed that the goods imported were nothing but discharge lamp and therefore, not covered by the above entry as electronic tubes. Accordingly, exemption benefit was denied and the goods were classified under Heading No. 85.18/27(4) as discharge lamp.The Collector (Appeals) however, accepted their petition and granted the relief prayed for. Hence this appeal.3. It was department's contention that the action taken by the Asstt.Collector was correct.4. A perusal of the catalogue shows that the goods have been manufactured by a firm engaged in the manufacture of bulbs. The name of the manufacturer is Key and Kwang Electric Bulb Factory Ltd. The catalogue also shows t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »