Delhi Court June 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.
Dental and Surgical Equipment Co. Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1997
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT660TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-243/89-TE of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The issue relates to admissibility or otherwise of exemption to dental spittoon bowls of opal glass under Notification No. 66/88, dated 1-3-1988.2. The appellants manufacture dental surgical equipments. The appellants manufacture among other dental surgical equipments Dentists' Chair. They claimed that Dentists' Chair are complete with dentists spittoon mounted on the chair and form an integral part of the same.They claimed exemption respect of these spittoon bowls under Notification 66/88 claiming these bowls to be component parts of dentists' chairs, which are exempted in turn under Notification 65/88.This claim was rejected by the lower authorities and Collector (Appeals) held that these spittoon bowls cannot be considered as integral part of dentists' chair.3. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that these bowls are part of spittoon mouth rinsers which in turn ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Simplex Chemopack (P.) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT811TriDel
1. After hearing the misc. application for early hearing, we find that the main appeal itself can be disposed of since the issue involved is in narrow compass. Accordingly, the misc. application is allowed.2. In appeal, the dispute relates to classification of HDPE/PP strips, tapes and fabrics. The Assistant Collector has decided the issue holding that the items, in question, are classifiable under Chapter 54 and Chapter 59 respectively. According to the department, these items are classifiable under 63.01. The department has filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector. The Collector (Appeals), while examining the issue, has remanded the matter to decide the issue of classification in the light of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Raj Pack Well Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 201 (M.P.).The department has come before us by way of appeal against the order passed by the Collector...
Kumar Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT596TriDel
1. In the captioned application, the applicant has submitted that there has been an error apparent on the face of the records inasmuch as the point of limitation was taken up not only in the memo of appeal but also at the time of personal hearing. But the same was not considered while deciding the appeal. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the appeal of M/s. Kumar Enterprises, and Swastik Industrial Power Line P. Ltd. were heard together inasmuch as the issue involved in both the appeals was the same. Learned Counsel submitted that first appeal of M/s. Swastik Industrial Power Line P. Ltd. was taken up and the point of limitation was raised which has been dealt with by the Tribunal in para 10. He submits that the same arguments were adopted for the second appeal. But the same is neither mentioned nor decided upon. He, therefore, submits that there is an error apparent which may be rectified.2. Shri Satnam Singh, learned SDR appearing for the ...
Trusound Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT53TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 26-11-1990 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The appellants imported a consignment of Mu-metal Housings. They claimed assessment under Heading 85.04.90 as parts of transformer. The Asstt. Collector rejected this claim as unsubstantiated since no catalogue etc. had been produced and these had been declared at the time of import as parts of transformer. Collector (Appeals) upheld the order, hence this appeal.3. Arguing for the appellants, ld. General Manager of the appellant's company submits that Mu-Metal Housing is a component part of low level audio transformer. It is used to encase the basic transformer to prevent the A.C. Hum field from reaching the transformer inside. It is made of Mu-Metal a metallic alloy with a high permeability and a low hysteresis loss that makes it excellent for magnetic shielding. It is, therefore, a vital part of transformer.4. Arguing for the revenue, ld. DR submits that it is a mere casing and transformer...
indore Wire Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT576TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Indore Wire Co. Limited have filed this appeal being aggrieved with the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Indore, dated 27-3-1987. The question involved in this appeal is whether mild steel galvanised wire are classifiable for duty under T.I. 33B or T.I. 25 of the erstwhile Excise Tariff. By the Impugned order a demand of Rs. 23,66,863.41 was demanded from the appellants and a penalty of Rs. One lakh imposed on them.2. The matter was heard on 12-12-1996 when Shri N.R. Khaitan, ld.Counsel appeared for the appellants and Shri M. Jayaraman, ld. JDR represented the Department.3. The appellants are manufacturers and dealers in steel wires by cold drawing process. On the basis of intelligence collected by the Department a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants on 27-3-1987. They were charged with contravention of various provisions of the Central Excise Rules and for engaging in the manufacture of telephone wires, /i.e. M...
Diamond Cement Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT263TriDel
1. The appellants imported a consignment of Cam Shaft Metal. The Customs Authorities held that some of these items which were declared as Cam Shaft Metal, Big Eng. Metal of Piston and Piston Pin Metal were actually bearings. The I.T.C. licence carried the stipulation "Import made of a single item won't exceed Rs. 3 lakhs in terms of para 74(3) of Import and Export Policy Book 1988-91". The impugned goods are alleged to be covered by single S. No. 489 of App. 3 Part A of AM 1988-91 Policy, the importers therefore, were eligible for clearance of engine bearings only up to a value of Rs. 3 lakhs against the said licence. In pursuance of proceedings against the appellants, the impugned goods were confiscated but allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. Penalty was also imposed on the appellants.2. Arguing for the appellants ld. Advocate submits that suppliers had wrongly claimed all these items under the heading bearings. Only Items 3 & 5 indicated in order of Collector a...
Hyderabad Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT692TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-original No.78/MP/Collr./88, dated 24-11-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of asbestos cement products.The dispute in the appeal relates to the period from 1982 to 1986 in respect of goods supplied to M/s. Central Coalfields Limited under specific agreement. It is admitted that goods had been cleared on payment of appropriate duty on the prices shown in the invoices.Subsequently it was found that appellant had collected Rs. 47,358.56 in reimbursement of the expenses of pre-despatch inspection conducted by Directorate of Inspection, DGS&D and paid initially by the appellant.It was also found that on the basis of the price escalation clause in the Agreement, prices had escalated and the appellant had raised debit bills against the buyers and had not paid excise duty on the amounts covered by the debit bills. Accordingly, notice was issued making the above averments and proposin...
Pegasus Prima Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT565TriDel
1. In this application the request made is for out of turn hearing on two counts, firstly, that the goods are still under detention and secondly that the issue of simultaneous availment of two different notification/procedure stands decided by the Tribunal. From the arguments of the learned Advocate it appeared that the department had resorted to detention of the goods after the expiry of the period prescribed in the stay order of the Tribunal. Now that the assessee has complied with the instructions in the stay order nothing prevented the assessee from approaching jurisdictional Collector and to seek relief.The learned Advocate also informed us that they have discontinued the practice of simultaneous availment of Modvat and, therefore, on this count there is no continuous peril to them. Thus, on both counts we find no merits in this application and dismiss the same....
Shiva Stampings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT327TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Shiva Stampings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur, the matter relates to the availment of Modvat credit in respect of the imported steel sheets on the strength of the certificates issued by the concerned Superintendent of Central Excise. The goods were imported by the importers and were sold on high re-sale basis to the traders. These traders under their bills sold the goods to different customers including the present appellants. On receipt of the goods on the strength of the bills, the appellants took Modvat credit. Subsequently, the requisite certificate from the concerned Superintendent of Central Excise was obtained and the credit was utilised after the date of such certificate. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the imported goods have not been received by the appellants under the cover of the certificate and in such circumstances, there was a clear violation of the provisions of Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants had pleaded ...
Jay Chemical Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT698TriDel
1. The common appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing but has sent a request for decision of the appeals on merits. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.2. The dispute arises on account of refund claims put forward by the common appellant on the ground that interest on receivables had been included in the assessable value and duty paid on that basis and the Supreme Court had held in MRF Limited 1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 (S.C.) case that interest on receivables would not be part of the assessable value.There are three refund claims. In respect of the earlier claim, there is no protest letter submitted and in respect of the remaining two claims, protest letter had been submitted to the Superintendent of Central Excise on 31-7-1987. Assistant Collector rejected the claims on various grounds, namely, there is no evidence that the invoice price (appellant was availing benefit of Invoice Price Procedure) included interest during the period of 60 days, that there...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »