Delhi Court May 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.
D. Navinchandra and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT722TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the Order dated 20th December, 1990, passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay holding that the imported item namely, "Bottom Press Pots" are not eligible for concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 159/86-Cus., dated 1-3-1986. The Collector has held that the description in the invoice as well as Bill of Entry with regard to the impugned goods have been declared as "Steel Pots", but on examination of the goods, they were found to be "Bottom Press Pots". It was contended by the importer before the Collector that the benefit available to Steel Pots should also be extended to Bottom Press Pots which are also Steel Pots on the ground that the Steel Pot is a generic entry which includes different kinds of 'Pots' like Bottom Press Pots, Top Press Pots etc. The Collector examined the catalogue having description "Machinery & Tools" of M/s. Rubin & Son Inc.Antwerp, which describes several tools used in diamond industry. From the catalogue, he ...
Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. New Great Eastern Spg. and Wvg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT140TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the applicability of exemption Notification No. 64/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986, as amended by Notification No. 276/86-C.E., dated 24-4-1986.The goods have been described in the order-in-original as under :- There is a composite mill and they are inter alia engaged in printing of Cotton Fabrics on Rotary printing machine with the help of Nickel Screen Cylinders/Rollers. To undergo the said process they purchase perforated Nickel Screen Cylinders from the original manufacturers on payment of Central Excise Duty. Subsequently a special type of photosensitive emulsion is applied on said Cylinders/Rollers, thereby a separate photographed transparent polyester film bearing required print/design is clearly placed around the tacquered (emulsion coated) Nickel Screen Cylinder/Rolls. Then by means of short wave source of light the design as per polyester film is given the effect of polymerisation of the synthetic materials where the lac...
Alembic Glass Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT337TriDel
1. The short point to be considered in the instant case is whether mugs, manufactured by the appellants, are eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 67/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988. The Notification No. 67/88 with the table is as under : Effective rate of duty on glassware produced by semi-automatic process and specified tableware of glass. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts, goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table hereto annexed, and falling under heading Nos. or sub-heading Nos. of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), as are specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) ...
Baripada Spg. Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT687TriDel
1. The exemption in the instant case has been denied on the ground that mode of payment was different from the mode, as mentioned in the Notification No. 47/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990.3. According to the department, as per Serial No. 4 to the table annexed to the notification that yarn including sewing thread, nor containing synthetic staple fibres, supplied in cross reel hanks, whether single or multiple fold, purchased by a registered cooperative society or any organisation set up or approved by the Government for the development of Handlooms and payment for which is made by cheque drawn by such cooperative society or organisation as the case may be, on its own bank account. The department was of the view that since payment was not made by cheque, as specified in notification, benefit cannot be extended. It was submitted by Shri Mohanty, ld. Advocate that payment in all these cases was through demand draft/letter of credit drawn by purchaser/cooperative society on its own bank account...
Phool Kumar Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)125; 1998(1)Crimes54; 68(1997)DLT155; 1997(42)DRJ261
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) Since only a short point is involved in this case, I have proceeded to hear the main appeal.(2) My attention has been drawn to primarily two serious violations of the mandatory requirements. Firstly that the Cfsl form was not sent when the samples were sent for analysis. Secondly, no report, as contemplated under Section 57 of Ndps Act, was ever submitted to the superior of the I.O. after the search had been completed. The fact of these lapses is confirmed from the original record and it is also not disputed by counsel for the State before me. The requirement of forwarding the Cfsl form Along with the samples has been stressed by this Court and also various other High Courts. A reference in this behalf be made to the following judgments. 1.Safiullah v. State, reported as 1993 Jcc 33; 2.Amarjit Singh v. State, reported as 1995 Jcc 91; 3.Shankariya v. State, reported as 1996 Jcc 136; 4.Abdul Ghaffar v. State, reported as 1996 Jcc 497; 5.Prem Singh v. State, reported as...
Murugappa Trading Company Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)165; 1997(42)DRJ100
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present judgment will dispose of C.W.P.Nos.2220/96 (Murugappa Trading Company and others v. Union of India and others) and 3271/96 (Arif M.Hussain and others v. Union of India and others).(2) The facts as alleged in the writ petitions are that the petitioners are the registered exporters of Textiles under the Powerloom Sector. Respondent No. 1 is the Ministry of Textiles which is in charge of the distribution of quota for export of textile to quota and non-quota countries. The Import-Export Policy under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act is laid down by respondent No. 2. The Textile Commissioner, respondent No. 3 is the functionary of respondent No. 1 and is responsible for the overall textile quota administered by respondent No. 4. The distribution of quota is delegated to respondent No. 4. The petitioners in both the petitions are aggrieved by the action of the respondent whereby the quota entitlement for the year 1996 in the Powerloom Exporters...
Rohini Education Society Vs. National Council for Teachers Education ( ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)47; 68(1997)DLT84; 1997(42)DRJ294
ORDER IN pursuance of Notification No.F.8-9/95 Ncte dated 13 December, 1995 and Notification No. F.28-14/95-NCTE dated 22 January, 1996, the National Council for Teacher Education hereby constitutes in terms of section 20(3) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act 1993, the Northern Regional Committee as under: 1.Composition & Membership Constituency A)Member to be nominated by the council Name of the member Smt. Sharada Jain Sandhan Research Centre, C-196, Van Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur-302004 B)One representative each of the States & Union Territories of the Region as determined by the Regulation viz., Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh Chandigarh and Delhi. c) Six persons to be nominated as determined by the Regulations. 1.Prof. S.N.Singh 66, Brahmananad Colony, Varanasi : 221 005 2.Prof. R.N.Mehrotra 3/189, Prem Nagar, Agra: 282 003. 3.Prof. M.A.Khader Regional Institute Education, (NCERT), Ajmer. 4.Shri Chatar Singh Mehta, Quarter No.1 Inside Dar...
invel Transmissions Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT467TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal, dated 30-7-1991.The appellants imported an Automatic antifriction machine. They claimed assessment under Heading 8461.90. Subsequently, however, they sought assessment of goods under CTH 8460.90 read with Notification No. 40/78.While revised classification under Heading 8460.90 was accepted, the benefit of Notification under 40/78 was rejected on the ground that these were not an automatic cycle internal grinder for grinding internal groove or track bearing outer races.2. Arguing for the appellants ld. Advocate submits that an Automatic antifriction bearing internal plunge grinding machine is automatic cycle grinder machine for grinding internal grooves or components as indicated in the catalogue. Collector (Appeals) has erred in holding that the machine performs functions other than those described against machine of S. No. 27 of Notification 40/78. Actually in referring to shape of grooves, it is their contention that grooves can b...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Anup Engineering Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT110TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay.2. The short point to be considered in this case is whether the following items are classifiable under 7308.90 as claimed by the party or under 8485.90 as per the department. The appellants have filed a classification list claiming the products under Heading 7308.90. It was contended that these products were manufactured by them from duty paid plate of iron and steel by the process of forging, spinning and machining which are being used as top and bottom covers of storage tankers, reaction vessels, distillation columns, boilers and other allied items of chemical industries. It was also contended by them that none of the articles is having any mechanical property for any function to be performed by it.3. Heard both sides. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. We take note of the fact that the issue with reference to classification o...
Boolani Engineering Corpn. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT341TriDel
1. The dispute is in respect of imported Power and Measuring Control Panels for Extruder temperatures and pressure control as well as for heating and drive of extruders. These control panels were classified by the Asstt. Collector at the time of clearance under Heading 85.18/27(1) of the Customs Tariff. It was assessed under that heading on the ground that imported product was nothing but control panel of the general type. Subsequently the assessee has filed a refund claim, claiming the classification under Heading 84.59(2). This was ruled out by the Asstt.Collector holding that there was a specific entry for control panel under Heading 85.18/27(1). Not being satisfied with the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, the party has approached the Collector (Appeals) by way of appeal. According to the party, for the first time before the Collector (Appeals) they have claimed that the item in question was classifiable under 84.38(1) but the same has not been considered by the Collector (Ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »