Delhi Court October 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sharanpur Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT380TriDel
1. The Appellants received inputs under cover of original invoices.They claimed that duplicate invoices were lost in transit. The credit was disallowed to them on the ground that they had availed Modvat credit without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority in regard to the original invoices.2. Arguing for the Appellants, the ld. Counsel submitted that during octroi checking at the border they handed over both original and duplicate invoices to the officers manning the post. Only the original invoices were returned to them. In fact they have submitted certificate obtained from the Lamba Motors of the concerned transport company to the effect that duplicate invoices were taken over by the Sales Tax officers. Assistant Commissioner has been empowered to allow such credit on such invoice and he ought to have exercised his discretion and not to penalise merely because they took Modvat credit on their own.4. I have heard both sides. Rule 57G(2A) stipulates manufacturers can...
Venus Metal Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT257TriDel
1. The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore upholding the order of the Assistant Collector and rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant before him. By his said order, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore had rejected the claim made before him by the appellant for classification of the goods in question under sub-heading No. 7325.10 together with the benefit of Notification No. 275/88. The Assistant Collector rejected this plea and held that the goods were to be classified under Chapter 84 or 85 depending vipon end use. He had, however, held that benefit of the Notification No. 223/88, dated 23-6-1988 would be admissible to them. This order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) on challenge before him. The present appeal is a sequel to this.2. Arguing the case of the appellants, Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar, learned Counsel took us through the relevant parts of the adjudication order, particularly ...
Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. (As ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)1
ORDERB. S. SALUJA, J.M. :The assessed and the Department have filed cross-appeals for asst. yr. 1987-88 against the order of the CIT(A) Central-I, Calcutta dt. 21st March, 1991. The other appeal is filed by the Department against the order of CIT(A) Central-I, Calcutta dt. 21st January, 1992. Since these appeals were heard together the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.ITA No. 2082/19912. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessed relates to disallowance made by the AO in respect of interest paid by the assessed to Customs Department, Excise Department and Rajasthan Electricity Board. The said ground was not pressed by the learned counsel. Hence this ground is rejected.3. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessed relates to reduction of subsidy of Rs. 1,83,330 from the WDV of the fixed assets.3.1. The AO observed that the assessed had received Rs. 1,63,280 as subsidy from J&K; Govt. on installation of diesel generating set and has claimed that the sam...
Sterling Machine Tools Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT287TriDel
1. The question for determination in this appeal is the eligibility to credit on the strength of invoice issued by SAIL which credit has been denied on the ground, inter alia that the invoice dated 10-7-1995 issued by SAIL did not contain complete address of the appellants and that the certificate evidencing payment of duty in PLA also does not show the complete address of the appellants. The address shown in the SAIL invoice bears Foundry Nagar address whereas the appellants have two units at Agra (1) C-38, Foundry Nagar and (2) B-13, Foundry Nagar, Agra. Learned Counsel, Shri R. Santhanam submits that there is no dispute that the inputs viz. pig iron were received from SAIL under cover of Invoice dated 10-7-1995 and were used in the manufacture of final products and incompleteness of address cannot be the only ground for denial.2. Learned DR supports the findings contained in the orders of the authorities below.3. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that (a) there is no ...
Rose Business Forms Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT260TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Rose Business Forms, the matter relates to the classification of computer stationary. The appellants had contended that the goods manufactured by them were articles of stationary and were eligible for exemption as the products of printing industry under Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982. The Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad after detailed discussion came to a finding that the goods were classifiable under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and were not covered by the exemption for the products of printing industry. He had also observed that the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation was valid and maintainable. He had, however, dropped the proceedings in so far as it related to the period under the new Central Excise Tariff in force from 1-3-1986.2. The matter was posted for hearing on 29-10-1997. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits and had filed written submission. In these written submissio...
Natraj Ceramic and Chemical Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT479TriDel
1. The appellants manufactured refractory bricks and mortars. They were consuming these articles for lining the furnaces in which such bricks and mortars were manufactured. They claimed benefit of Notification No.217/86 as amended for such captive use of the products. The classification list in which the benefit was claimed was approved but later a show cause notice was issued claiming that the benefit of the notification was not available since the goods were not used for the manufacture of the final product. It was also alleged that no declaration under Rule 57G(1) was filed by the assessee claiming the contested goods to be inputs. The Assistant Collector held that the bricks and mortars used for repairs of the kilns would not be eligible for the benefit of the notification in view of the Part (i) of the Explanation thereto. On this ground he confirmed the demand made in the show cause notice. The Collector (Appeals) having upheld the lower orders, the present appeal is before us.2...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT247TriDel
1. This is a revenue appeal against the order dated 6-10-1989 passed by Collector (Appeals), Calcutta. The assessee claimed the benefit of Notification No. 64/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 in the classification list dated 11-8-1989 in respect of Electrical Stampings and Laminations used in the manufacture of Electric motors which in turn is used in the manufacture of Power Driven Submersible pump. The Asstt. Collector took a view that stampings and laminations are parts of electric motor and not of submersible pump. Ld. Collector (Appeal) differed and held that they are parts of power driven submersible pump and hence the benefit of notification cannot be denied. Revenue is aggrieved in his order and rest several grounds.2. Ld. Advocate points out the Board of Central Excise Customs have accepted this position and has issued a circular dated 11-11-1994 and 2-2-1994 holding that stampings and laminations used in the manufacture of electric motors, which are in turn used in the manufacture o...
Kirloskar Pneumatic Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT477TriDel
1. The issue for determination in this appeal, which arises out of the Order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, is the eligibility of Driving Lever with Bellows to the benefit of Notification 111/86, dated 17-2-1986 and 60/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987.2. The appellants herein imported a consignment of Warranty spares for centrifugal compressors over 7.5 H.P. and cleared the same on payment of duty. Subsequent to the clearance of the goods, they filed a refund claim on the ground that the goods are eligible to the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of the notifications mentioned above. The authorities below held that the benefit is available only to component parts of the compressor and since the goods imported by appellants are only spares, they would not be covered by the notification. In addition, the bar of unjust enrichment has been held to operate against the appellants.3. We have heard Shri T. Vishwanathan, ld. Advocate, who submits that the issue has been sett...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Brassco India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT248TriDel
1. The appeal is by Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi challenging the order in appeal passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi by which the latter had rejected an appeal filed before him by the department against the order in original passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise, Gurgaon. By the said order in original, the Additional Collector had dropped the adjudication proceedings initiated against the present respondent vide show cause notice dated 28-6-1993 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,77,419/- and imposition of penalty. The Additional Collector accepted their plea that Modvat credit should not be denied to them in respect of their input, copper wire scrap as they had obtained the permission of the Assistant Collector for clearing copper waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2) for manufacture of copper tubes and pipes. It was held by the Additional Collector that such permission would amount to an acknowledgment of their using the particular input and c...
Vasant Furniture Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT460TriDel
1. The twin questions which arise out of the order passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, are : (i) Correct classification of wooden tops laminated manufactured by the appellants and supplied by them during the relevant period to M/s. Godrej manufacturers of refrigerators; (ii) Eligibility to the benefit of Notification No. 65/85-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 79/86, dated 10-2-1986.2. The claim of the appellants is that the wooden tops laminated fall for classification under Heading 9403 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which covers "Other furniture and parts thereof", while according to the Department, since the goods are specially designed for refrigerators they would more appropriately fall for classification under sub-heading 8418.00 as parts/accessories of refrigerators.3. We have heard Sh. Nunthuk, ld. D.R., and perused the records of the case, since the appellants have asked for a decision on merits.4. The authorities below have ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »