Delhi Court March 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.
Kumar Aerosols Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT201TriDel
1. In all these appeals involving common question of law and facts were taken up together and are being disposed of through this common order.2. The appellants are manufactures of Aerosol Valves. Aerosol Valves are claimed to be pressure reducing valves which are mounted on the top of containers manufactured from glass or metal and are used for spraying liquids packed under pressure according to ISI Specification No. IS 9634 -1980 for Aerosol Valves. The Appellants imported nozzels which among others are as parts of these valves. They claimed benefit of Notification 69/87, dt. 1-3-1987 on the ground that goods are classifiable under Heading 8481.90, and by virtue of the classification are classifiable under CTH 98.06. This claim was rejected.3. We have heard both sides. Note 7(d) of Chapter Note 98 does not cover, among others, any other part of machinery which the Central Government may, having regard to its nature of being a part having general application, notify in the Official Ga...
Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT475TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Sandhvik Asia Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the product tungsten carbide blanks with Neyveli inserts. The appellants had classified these products under heading No. 81.01 of the Tariff as articles of tungsten. The classification was approved. Subsequently a show cause notice was issued seeking classification of the product under heading No. 84.31 of the Tariff as parts suitable for these solely or principally with the machinery of heading numbers 84.25 to 84.30 of the Tariff. The Tungsten carbide blanks were useable with the escalators which were classifiable under heading No. 84.29 of the Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay upholding the order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise held that there was no case for classification of the goods in question under sub heading no. 8101.00 of the Tariff. The Assistant Collector Central Excise had classified the same under sub heading No. 8431.00.2. The matter was f...
Hemal Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT447TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Hemal Industries against the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Shri M.C. Sharma, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants submitted that Collector (Appeals) was not right in dismissing the appeal as barred by time. He said that although the order of the Assistant Collector was dated 15-4-1986 but the same was communicated to the party after 26-4-1986 and if the date of communication is taken as 26-4-1986, the appeal was filed within six months from the date of the communication of the order. He said that the Collector (Appeals) has got a discretionary power to condone delay for a period of three months after the prescribed period of three months in terms of Section 128 of the Customs Act. He submitted that party could not file an appeal within the stipulated time since no convering letter/preamble was supplied to the party to enable him to file appeal to the jurisdictional Appellate Authority.3. He also drew...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Jenson and Nicholson (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT150TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against Order Nos. 132 to 133/Cal-II/84, dated 28-12-1984.2. Today's date was fixed in the presence of the learned Counsel on the last occasion.3. The matter was initially passed over and has been called once again, but none has appeared for the respondents. We have, therefore, perused the records and heard the learned DR.4. Learned DR stated that the respondents had brought duty paid aluminium paste and availed proforma credit under Rule 56A for use in the manufacture of finished excisable goods - 'aluminium paint' during the period Jan. 1984 to Feb. 1984 (in Appeal No. E/1175/85-C) and Nov.1983 to Dec. 1983 (in Appeal No. E/1174/85-C).5. They were clearing this aluminium paint in the form of aluminium paste and medium for aluminium paint in dual container for being used as aluminium paint, on payment of excise duty on the paste under 14-I(1)(i) of CET and on medium under 14-II(i) in respect of the product, aluminium paint, although it wa...
Apuraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT420TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. 3479/88 BCH, dated 7-10-1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The appellants imported a consignment of Components for Hotmelt Applicator. This was assessed to duty under CTH 8465.94 as machine tools for glueing. Their appeal was rejected by Collector (Appeals) holding the impugned goods to be electrical machines having individual functions.4. Ld. DR reiterates the departmental arguments submitting that the impugned goods having individual function of glueing and therefore, would fall under heading 8543.80.5. We have heard ld. DR and perused the records of the case. The catalogue indicates the impugned goods to be electronically controlled glue gun. The function of the goods is glueing. In order to attract 85.43, goods have to be electrical machines having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter. In other words, this is in a way a residuary item. HSN Notes under Chapter Heading 84.65 specifical...
H.S. Khanna and Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)740; 1997(1)ARBLR567(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT696; 1997(41)DRJ410
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, filed by the petitioner praying for appointment of an independent Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute/claims of the petitioner in view of the fact that the Appointing Authority has forfeited its authority to appoint an Arbitrator. (2) The petitioner submitted his tender for certain construction work with the respondents and an agreement was executed between the parties with regard to the subject work. (3) In relation to the aforesaid contract work, disputes arose between the parties in respect of which the petitioner sought for an arbitration on 25th June, 1992. However, since no Arbitrator was appointed by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court with a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act which was registered as Suit No. 1082-A/1994. (4) This Court after hearing the parties passed an order on 14.12.1995 directing the respondent to file the Agreement in Court and also dire...
Arun Mudgil and anr. Vs. D.C.M. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)933; 67(1997)DLT102
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.1.96 passed by the A.D.J, Delhi in Civil Appeal No. 24/1994 arising out of judgment dated 29.11.86 passed by the Sub-Judge, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 230/1981, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession and damages. (2) The respondent-Company is maintaining a colony for residential purposes of its employees and allots quarters to them during the course of their employment. The defendant Harcharan Singh Sharma, since deceased, predecessor of the appellants, was employed as a worker in the, respondent-Company and by virtue of his employment the residential quarter (suit accommodation) was allotted to him as a licensee at a monthly license fee of Rs. 40.15 vide deed of license dated (Ex. Public Witness . 3/1). The license fee was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 44.30 p. per month. The deceased defendant retired from service of the respondent-Company on 9.12.80 as a result whereof his license stood term...
Kanoria Chemicals and Indus. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT397TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal, dated 6-9-1990, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, rejecting the claim of the appellants for grant of concessional benefit of Notification No.58/87 on the ground that the M.S. Plates were imported for manufacture of Bare Bottom for the Cells for the manufacture of Caustic Soda in their plant i.e. renovation/repair of the plates. He has upheld the Assistant Collector's order that the activity did not constitute manufacture of machinery falling under Heading No. 84 or 85. The Collector has noted that the Notification No. 58/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987 as amended, exempts the goods specified in the table annexed, falling within Chapter 72 of the Tariff, _ , when used for the purpose of manufacture of machinery falling under Chapters 84 and 85 of the Customs Act, from the duty in excess of 25% ad valorem, , subject to satisfaction of the specified authorities that the goods are to be so used by them and on furnishing of an und...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shri Ram Rayons
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT440TriDel
1. When the matter had come tip on last occasion in view of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that authorisation is defective, D.R. was directed to place relevant note sheet order on our record to verify whether the Collector had applied his mind before giving authorisation as envisaged under Section 35B (2) of the CESA.Relevant Section 35B(2) reads as under : "The Collector of Central Excise may, if he is of opinion, that an order passed by- (a) the Appellate Collector of Central Excise under Section 35, as it stood immediately before the appointed day, or (b) the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35-A, is not legal or proper, direct any Central Excise officer authorised by him in this behalf (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as the authorised officer) to appeal on his behalf to the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be the Customs and Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal established under Section 3 of the Customs and Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal Act,...
Collector of Customs Vs. Medifex India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT392TriDel
1. In all these appeals common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are all taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The Revenue is aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 8-12-1987, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 21-5-1987, passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs; Inland Container Depot, Bangalore, by which he has confirmed the demands raised in the various show cause notices in respect of Bills of Entry stated in the Order-in-Original. The details of which are noted as under : -SI.Name of the B/E No. Value Duty not levied for whichNo.Importer & date Rs. Demand Notice issued with No. & date1. Medifex 000107/84 2,30,018/- Rs. 2,00,116/- D/N No. AE (India) 20-8-1984 191/85, dated 16-2-19852. Equipment 000109/84 9,25,261 /- Rs. 8,05,000/- D/N No. HM Sales 21-8-1984 119/85, dated 13-2-19853. Techmech 000108/84 2,80,162/- D/N No. AE 192/85, dated Surgicals 20-8-1984 18-2-19854. Techmech 000110...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »