Delhi Court October 1997 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. Devi Dayal Aluminium Inds. (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1997
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT653TriDel
1. The Reference Application filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut seeks the following question as a question of law arising out of the Tribunal Order No. A-1964/96-NB, dated 16-7-1996 to be referred to the High Court: "Whether Modvat credit will be admissible under Rule 57A on lubricating oil, Hydraulic oil and Gear oil which do not go in the stream line of production of final product and the functional use of which is lubrication of machines only." By the subject order, the Tribunal held that the items in question were eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit and allowed the appeal upholding the claim of the appellants who are respondents in this Reference matter. Objection was that these oils were not used in relation to the manufacture of their final product, copper strips/foils, and aluminium articles and that such use was for protecting the products from developing cracks as also to render the product smooth besides rendering the machines installed in the factory ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT79TriDel
1. This is a Revenue appeal which arises from order-in-appeal dated 23-9-1988, by which the Collector (Appeals) has held that the Photogravure cylinders are classifiable under Heading 84.42 and they are entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 64/86, dated 10-2-1986 (as amended by Notification No. 276/86). He has further held that this exemption is available only from the date of amendment of Notification i.e. 24-4-1986 and that the exemption is not available for screens. The Revenue contends that the benefit of Notification cannot be extended to rotary screens.2. We have heard the learned DR. The party has also filed their objection and submitted that the matter has been decided by the Tribunal in a similar case in the case of Premier Mills Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 385. It is also pointed out by the respondents that the ground of appeal appear to have confused the concept. In that they seems to suggest that the issue is with respect to ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT462TriDel
1. A preliminary objection was raised by Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent that the authorisation in this appeal filed by Revenue should have been issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs and not by the Collector himself. He pointed out that even it is felt that the Collector could issue authorisation he could only issue in favour of another officer whereas in this case he has himself filed the appeal which the learned Counsel contended was not proper.This preliminary objection is dismissed. It is clear that the appeal challenges an order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) against which the department does have remedy before the Tribunal in terms of Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act. The authorisation by the Board which the learned Counsel referred to will relate to appeals filed against the orders of the Collectors after review by the Board for their legality and propriety. This being not such an appeal, the said requirement would not ap...
Collector of Customs Vs. Paharia Marbles Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT460TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue is contesting the classification, under the Customs Tariff, of the goods described as "plates" for use in marble cutting machine of size 3950 x 180 x 3 mm. The Assistant Collector found the goods to be plain Gangsaw blades segments. He determined the classification under Heading 82.01 /04 rejecting the claim of the importers that the goods were classifiable under 84.45/48 as part of the machine tools for working metals. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) has held that the goods were more appropriately classifiable under Heading 82.06 which attracted same rate of duty as for goods under Heading 84.45/48. The claim in the appeal memorandum is that the finding of the Assistant Collector be restored.2. We have heard Shri R.S. Sangia, ld. DR for the Revenue. The respondents were represented by Shri N.C. Sogani, ld. Advocate.3. Shri Sogani, ld. Advocate referred to a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Manjushree Mineral...
Topack Industries (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cus. (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT148TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Topack Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the eligibility of the special purpose metal ring machine imported, to the benefit of exemption Notification No.40/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978 as amended. The appellants had claimed the exemption under the said notification on the ground that the machine imported was the automatic flow forming machine for manufacturing of cylindrical components of metals. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Customs as unsubstantiated. On appeal the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to verify the claim of the appellants with reference to the documents which they had produced before the Appellate Authority. The matter was re-adjudicated and it was held by the Assistant Collector of Customs in re-adjudication that the machine imported was not covered by Serial No. 35 of the table given below the Notification No. 40-Cus., dated 1-3 1978 referred to above. The goods had been originally ass...
C.C.E. Vs. Gujarat Communication and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT179TriDel
1. This Revenue appeal is directed against the order dated 9-8-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The respondents are manufacturers of Edit Control Unit. They had filed a classification list for the classification of their product which was approved by the Assistant Collector under Item 37BB of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Subsequently, however they filed another classification list on 15-9-1984 claiming classification under Item 68. This classification was approved by the Assistant Collector on 18-2-1985. Thereafter, they filed a refund claim amounting to Rs. 79,423.84 p. for the period 31-8-1984 to 22-3-1985 which was considered by the Assistant Collector who disallowed them the refund in respect of goods covered under gate passes 6 and 7 on the ground that they had not filed revised classification list on the particular date.The remaining claim was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector after disallowing an amount of ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Sagittarians Agency Division
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT69TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is whether the Skiving Knives imported by the intending agents, the respondents before us, M/s. Sagittarians Agency Division, were eligible for the benefit of Customs exemption Notification No. 224/85-Cus., dated 9-7-1985 which, among others, prescribed concessional rate of Customs duty to the Bell Skiving Knives when imported for use in the leather industry. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, observed that the Skiving Knives had multiple end-use and that it had not been proved that the Skiving Knives were used in the leather industry. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs and allowed the appeal. He observed from the literature produced by the importers, catalogue etc., that the Bell Skiving Knives were usable in the leather industry. He further observed that there was no condition in the exemption notification that the goods s...
Kosan Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT49TriDel
1. The appeal by M/s. Kosan Industries P. Ltd. is directed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, confirming a duty demand of Rs. 73,213/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on them. The said decision was taken by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellant had manufactured and cleared certain medicaments attracting classification under Central Excise Tariff Item 3301 liable to duty at 20% ad valorem.2. Arguing the case of the appellant, Shri R. Parthasarathy, learned Counsel states that he is mainly stressing the time limit aspect.Clearances of the goods in question had taken place during the period 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1990 whereas the show cause notice has been issued on 30-5-1991. They had filed classification list for the subject goods claiming classification thereof under sub-heading 3005.90. The Assistant Collector amended the declared classification to 3003.30 and changed the declared rate of duty of 15% to n...
Indian Communication Cable Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT267TriDel
1. Both these appeals, one by the appellants and the other by the Revenue, were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order.2. On 3-8-1987, officers of the Preventive Branch of Central Excise, MOD-IH, New Delhi visited the appellants' factory and carried out physical verification of the stock. As a result, a shortage of 2.490 Kms. of core wires valued at Rs. 1,244,500/- as compared to stocks already entered in RG 1 was detected. The stock verification also revealed that wires and cables of different sizes measuring 43.450 Kms.valued at Rs. 7,62,898/- which were in excess of the recorded balance had not been accounted for in RG 1. Since the goods had not been accounted for, they were seized. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 31,125/- on wires valued at Rs. 1,24,500/- found short as compared to the book balance. The show cause notice also proposed confiscation of excess goods valued at Rs....
Mahendra Prakash Sarraf Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)64ITD382(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the maintenance of penalty of Rs. 1,78,650 imposed under section 272A(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and relates to the assessment year 1989-90.2. I have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before me and precedents relied upon. It is prescribed under proviso to section 272A(2) : "that the amount of penalty for failures in relation to returns under sections 206 and 206C shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be". This proviso was inserted with effect from 1-10-1991. It was argued without prejudice to the main contentions, that this provision being of clarificatory in nature, is to be applied retrospectively.3. It was submitted by Shri Sapra that provisions dealing with penalty must be strictly construed. Penalties are to be construed within the terms and language of the particular statute. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform statutory obligation, i...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »