Delhi Court November 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.
instruments Orthopaedics Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT60TriDel
1. The appeal is directed against the order-in-original passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I holding that the benefit of full exemption from duty granted under Notification 71/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 for artificial limbs and rehabilitation aids for the handicaps was not available for the products manufactured by the appellant, namely, orthopaedic implants like hip joints, screes, (sic) plates, nails etc. used in joints, broken bones during orthopaedic operations. Accordingly, duty demand of Rs. 95,972.10 was confirmed leading to the present appeal.2. On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted by Shri S.V. Nankani, learned Advocate that they had filed technical information before the adjudicating authority in support of their claim that the goods in question fell within the scope of the expression used in the subject exemption notification but the same had not been considered while passing the order. The Additional Collector, it was contended, had taken a n...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Banmore Electricals P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT367TriDel
1. The short point for determination in the present appeal is whether Modvat credit will be admissible on locks and padlocks provided with the transformers under Rule 57A.2. Shri D.K. Nayyar, ld. JDR submits that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of transformers and were availing credit of duty paid on inputs under the Modvat scheme. They claimed the credit of duty on padlocks and locks. The Department alleged that locks and padlocks are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of transformers and since the manufacture of transformers is complete even without the locks and padlocks, therefore, padlocks and locks were not essential part and are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of transformers and therefore no Modvat credit under Rule 57A was admissible to the respondents herein. The ld. JDR submitted that locks and padlocks are bought out items and are fitted only as an abundant caution against pilferage of oil used as lubricant in the transformers...
Diesel Locomotive Works Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT557TriDel
1. Shri V. Sridharan, the ld. Advocate arguing the Stay Petition, submits that the ld. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad has confirmed a demand of Rs. 14.79 Crore as duty and has imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 3.50 Crore. He submits that the Applicant is engaged in the manufacture of Diesel Locomotives and parts thereof, including Engine Parts used in engines. He submits that the Locomotives and spare parts are supplied to the Indian Railways; that they are also sold to Public Sector Undertakings. He submits that the present demand covers all Engine Blocks and other parts used in Engines cleared to the Railways. He submits that the dispute was about the Classification of parts of Engines. The ld. Counsel submits that according to them, these parts will fall under Chapter sub-heading 86.07 whereas the Department was holding that these parts are classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.09. The ld. Counsel argued that it is axiomatic that a part of a part is a part of the whole and ...
Jalpac India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT554TriDel
1. The appellants in this case have challenged the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 15-11-1994 by which a duty demand of Rs. 14,35,578.00 was confirmed against them. The dispute relates to denial of Modvat credit under Rule 57A on Evaporation Boats on the ground that the function of Evaporation Boats is similar to refractory goods used to provide protective lining against high temperatures and chemical reactions. The Evaporation Boats were, according to the lower authorities, in the nature of appliances/equipment.2. We have heard Shri R. Nambirajan, ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR for the respondent Collector.3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were inter alia engaged in the process of metallising/lacquering of polyester film. In the process of metallising the polyester film, the appellants were using refractory ceramic and evaporation boats for evaporating aluminium wire. The evaporator boats...
Tata Metals and Strips Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT316TriDel
1. Miscellaneous application for change of name of the appellant which is supported by the Court order is allowed. Registry to make necessary changes in the name of the appellant in the records.2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether in quantifying the extent of relief available under Notification 198/76 relating to reliefs for production in excess of the base period clearances, the effective duty should be arrived at before the benefit of proforma credit is applied or after such benefit is taken into account. As explained by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the products manufactured by them, namely cold rolled strips from hot rolled strips attracted effective duty rate of Rs. 650/- PMT in terms of Notification 153/77. Notification 198/76 permitted the manufacturers relief to the extent of 25% of the effective duty for the goods produced in excess of the base period clearance. Since the appellant was using either excise duty paid indigenous goods or countervailing duty p...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Roplas (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT441TriDel
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune.2. Brief facts of the case are that a show cause notice was issued to the respondents alleging that the respondents are converting the bare chassis of Jeeps falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No.34-I(2)(ii) to motor vehicles with body 34-I(2)(i)(b) of the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, after body building amounting to manufacture of motor vehicle. The Collector of Central Excise vide impugned order dropped the proceedings against the respondents.3. The Revenue filed this appeal on the ground that motor vehicles with chassis manufactured and cleared by M/s. Mahendra and Mahendra falls under Tariff Item 34-I(ii) attracting the excise duty at the rate of 30/) and when fitted with body, it becomes motor vehicles with body and therefore is classifiable under Tariff Item 34-I(ii)(ib) of the tariff. The Revenue contended that by fitting Fibre glass re...
indica Chemical Industries P. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT460TriDel
1. All these stay applications involving common question of law and facts were taken up together and are being disposed of through this common order.2. The Applicants in one case seek waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.52,702/- and another case waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 49,860/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.3. Arguing in support of Applications the ld. Consultant for the Appelants submits that the issue relates to admissibility of Modvat credit in case of HDPE sacks. The Department has denied credit on the ground that the declaration under Rule 57G had not been filed. The ld.Consultant submits that there was a dispute in regard to classification of HDPE sacks. Subsequently it was clarified that these were classifiable under Tariff Heading 39. They had, there-fore, filed declaration claiming the benefit of Modvat credit. Subsequently however under the exclusion clause they could not take credit in respect of the {TOPE sacks and the matter was in dispute. Subsequently however the exclusion c...
S.R. Patel Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT168TriDel
1. The appeal is filed by Shri S.R. Patel, Technical Manager of Dujodwala Industries challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 30,000/- imposed on him by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi under his Order-in-Original No. 27/90, dated 30-5-1990. Under his said order, the Collector had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs on the company M/s. Dujodwala Industries besides demanding duty of Rs. 57,97,096.82. In response to the notice of hearing, the appellant has sent a letter enclosing a copy of the Tribunal's Order No. 386/93-C, dated 6-12-1993 passed on the appeal filed by the company challenging the demand of duty and imposition of penalty on them. It is pointed out by the appellant that the main appeal of his employer company has been allowed by the Bench under the said order. He has requested that his appeal may also be allowed.2. Shri M. Ali, ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the respondent Collector made a submission that the Tribunal's order in regard to the demand of dut...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Nagarjuna Co-operative Sugars
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT366TriDel
1. The only point to be considered in this case is whether the assessee can avail benefit of concessional rate of duty without claiming the same in the classification list. The Assistant Collector held that the assessee is not entitled to claim refund since it was not shown in the price list. The Collector (Appeals) observed that normally the assessees are expected to claim the exemption in the classification list. However, where they, by ignorance or inadvertance have not claimed the exemption, they have an alternate remedy under Section 11B of the Act by filing a refund claim. It is settled position now that the provisions of Section 11B are substantive in nature and also independent so long as the claim for refund of excise duty is made within six months. It is not the case of the department that refund claim is barred by time. The Tribunal has observed in the case of Rasan Detergents reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 95 following the earlier decision in the case of Tata Oil Mills repor...
Upper Ganges Sugar and Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT166TriDel
1. The captioned two appeals were heard together as the issue involved in these appeals is the same and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the cases in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar and Molasses. They procured pipes and tubes from the market which they used in the plant for carrying juice from the cane juice tank to other parts of the plant for the manufacture of sugar. The appellants also used Asbestos packing, Compressed Asbestos, Asbestos packing yarn for jointing the parts of machines etc. The department alleged that these items were not capital goods, therefore, disallowed them Modvat credit on these items. The appellants, in reply to the show cause notice submitted that these items are parts of the plant inasmuch as pipes and tubes are used for carrying cane juice and Asbestos packings, Compressed Asbestos Fibre and Asbestos Packing Yarn are used for jointing the parts of tubes, pipes etc. and were used in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »