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.
Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. K. L. Anand, Inco ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Del)421
ANIL DEV SINGH, J. :This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dt. 24th January, 1997 whereby the order of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dt. 28th July, 1995 was set aside. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows :A criminal complaint No. 901 of 1987 for the alleged commission of the offences under s. 276E of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), was filed by Shri R. M. Prasad, ITO, Company Circle XXV, New Delhi, against the petitioners as per the following allegations :Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioners 2 to 4 were the Directors of the petitioner No. 1 during the period relevant to the asst. yr. 1984-85 and they were in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time when the offence is said to have been committed. During the course of the assessment proceedings for the period relevant to the asst. yr. 1984-85 the complainant found...
Ludhiana Dist. Coop. Milk Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT184TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Ludhiana District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., the matter relates to the classification and dutiability of the skimmed milk powder, floor or chambers sweepings.The Addl. Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh in his order dated 4-12-1990 had held that the floor sweepings were nothing but skimmed milk powder as they had been put up in containers of 25 Kgs. bags and sold. They were classified under sub-heading 0401.13 of the Central Excise Tariff. He had demanded duty of Rs. 20,277/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- 2. We have heard Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for the appellants and Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR for the respondent Revenue.3. There is no dispute on the facts of the case that the appellants were engaged among others in the manufacture of skimmed milk powder.During the course of the manufacture of the skimmed milk powder, certain sweepings arise. Sweepings are collected and sold as cattle food or for other purposes other than for human co...
Pantagon Plastic Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT249TriDel
1. The appellants were manufacturing articles of plastic such as sheets and tubings. They had claimed, benefit of Sl. Nos. 24, 35 and 38 of Notification No. 132-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. They had filed necessary declarations to the jurisdictional officers for two years, viz., 1986-87 and 1987-88. The entry at Sl. No. 35 of the notification prescribed nil rate of duty to acrylic sheets if manufactured out of materials specified in the entry. On a visit to the unit and on perusal of the invoices, which described the goods as "acrylic sheets made out of cellulose acetate"; the samples were got examined by the chemical examiner. The chemical examiner opined that acrylic plastic and cellulose acetate plastic being categorically different materials, acrylic plastic sheets could not be manufactured from cellulose acetate. After recording evidence, show cause notice dated 18-1-1991 was issued invoking the extended period. The specific allegation was made in the show cause notice that the assessee...
Gujarat State Fertilizers Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT840TriDel
1. The above two appeals involving common issues of classification and applicability of extended period of limitation were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Urea, Ammonium Sulphate and Diammonium Phosphate fertilizers as well as Caprolactum, Melamine and Nylon-6 chips in their factory situated in Fertilizer Nagar, District Vadodara.With the introduction of Tariff Item 68 in the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, the appellants classified Demineralised water (DM water) i.e. river or pond water from which the appellants removed calcium and magnesium by Ion exchange process, under Tariff Item 68, and excise duty was collected thereon under this heading; however, subsequently by letter dated 14-7-1986, the Superintendent of Central Excise informed the appellants that DM water fell outside the scope of Tariff Item 68 and the appellants, therefore, applie...
Brakes India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT173TriDel
1. The issue in the appeal relates to classification of castings which have been held to be parts of motor vehicles in terms of the Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Central Excise Tariff.2. Shri R. Raghvan, learned Counsel for the appellants has pleaded that the appellants manufacture castings at their Sholinghur unit and after subjecting them to some processes these were sent to their Padi unit where further processes are carried out and thereafter they are fitted on to the cylinder assembly and master cylinder assembly. He has pleaded that prior to 1-3-1986 the issue of classification of the very same castings as were subjected to processes at Sholinghur was decided in Appeal E/632/85-B1, dated 24-6-1992 and these were held to be only castings. He does not have a copy of this order. He has pleaded that the pleas taken earlier were that castings do not lose their character as castings by reason of the processes carried at their Sholinghur unit and these emerged as identifiable part of...
Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cen. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT116TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 1-9-1989.The issue for consideration is admissibility or otherwise of concession on tubes and pipes made out plates of thickness 5mm and above under Notification 208/83, dated 1-8-1983. It was held by the Collector (Appeals) that since the plates from which these pipes and tubes were made had a thickness exceeding 5 mm, the appellants were not eligible to concession under Notifications 208/83 and 90/88.2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Advocate draws our attention to Notification No. 90/88 at page 28 of appeal papers and submits condition relating to thickness of inputs applied only to flats.3. We have heard both the sides. The relevant Sl. No. 3 of Notification 208/83, Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988 and Notification No.90/88, dated 1-3-1988 are set out below :_______________________________________________________________________________Sl. No. Description of inputs Description of final products__________...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Trust Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT361TriDel
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Principal Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi who has dropped the demand of differential duty raised on the respondents herein for the period 7-12-1986 to 30-6-1987 on a product known as "Foot Powder".2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessees/respondents herein manufacture 'Foot Powder'. They commenced manufacture on 7-12-1986. A classification list was filed by them on 26-11-1986 claiming classification under Sub-heading 3003.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act which covers P or P medicines. A show cause notice was issued on 3-7-1987 proposing revision of the classification list by classification as 'Beauty or make-up preparations' and 'preparations for the care of the skin' under Heading 3304. No demand of duty was, however, raised in this notice which was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector's order and the order-in-original dated 19-11-1987 holding that the item is to be t...
Wolrem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT452TriDel
1. The appellants in this case in their classification list claimed the benefit of Notification No. 23/55-C.E., dated 29-4-1955 (sic) as amended, for the following products : The benefit of the notification having been denied by the lower authorities, the present appeal is before us.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, clarified that the appeal was limited to the first two products only.It was his claim that the concerned notification exempts 'chalk'. It was his claim that the first product namely calcite is equitable to chalk. In this connection, he relies upon the definitions in the Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 8th Edition, by G.G. Hawley. His further contention is that the notification exempts silica. The second product Wollastonite being a natural silicate falls within the meaning of the word Silica. Since these two products named in the classification list are akin to the two products specified in the notification, it is his claim that the benefit ...
U.P. Twiga Fibreglass Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT436TriDel
1. Shri S.V. Arya, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants M/s.U.P. Twiga Fibreglass Ltd. submitted that the appellants had prima facie a strong case on merits inasmuch as the matter relates to the duty liability on glass waste which is not specifically mentioned in the Central Excise Tariff. The Revenue had classified the glass waste also along with the glass fibre and articles of glass under Heading No.7014 of the CETA, 1985. He referred to the order-in-appeal and submitted that everything which is waste even if may be marketable may not be excisable, and referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Indian Aluminium Industries Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T.268 (S.C.). He also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Balaji Enterprises v. C.C.E., Madras reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) relating to aluminium scrap. He also assailed the order-in-appeal on the ground of limitation. On behalf of the respondent Revenue, Shri R.S. Sangia was present.2. ...
Anamed Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT181TriDel
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of electronic balances of high sensitivity. The dispute in the appeal relates to the period June, 1985 to March, 1987. Appellant was filing price lists and on approval of the same clearing goods on payment of appropriate duty. Show cause notice was issued stating that the appellant failed to include the value of wind draft shield supplied to the customers in the value of electronic balances and also collected separately stamping charges and this was done without declaring the same to the Department and, therefore, appellant was guilty of suppression of material information with intent to evade duty. The notice proposed demand of differential duty for the entire period. Though the appellant resisted the notice, the Additional Collector confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 500/-....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »