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.
Venus Rubber Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT597TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Principal Collector in which duty amounting to Rs. 6,06,438.87 was confirmed in terms of Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of the Act, seized goods valued at Rs. 1,55,227 were confiscated and were allowed redemption on a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the appellants.2. The appellants were manufacturing latex foam articles falling under Tariff Item 16A(1) of the erstwhile Tariff and under Heading 9404 of the Central Excise/Tariff, 1985. They were availing of the benefit of Notification Nos. 80/80, 83/83 and 85/85 for the respective periods which notifications permitted clearances of specified goods up to certain values. In terms of Notification No. 31/76 they had claimed exemption from licensing and had filed declarations every year in terms of the said notification. In September, 1987 jurisdictional excise officers visited their factory and examined the records pertaining to the manufacture and clearance of...
Madan Mohan Sethi Vs. Nirmal Shyam Kumar Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1997
Reported in: 69(1997)DLT574; 1997(43)DRJ630
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) This is a revision petition assailing the impugned order dated 28.10.1997, by which the evidence of the defendant/petitioner was closed. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the suit was instituted in the year 1974 and the respondent/plaintiff's evidence got concluded only on 8.9.1997 and thereafter the petitioner/defendant's evidence commenced only on 9.9.1997. Learned Counsel, thereforee, submitted that the Trial Court was proceeding post haste in the matter and the petitioner was being denied adequate opportunity for examining the witnesses. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted an analysis of various dates from November, 1980 to put forward his submission that the petitioner could not be held to be responsible for the delay in the matter, which according to the petitioner was attributable significantly to the respondent also. The finding of the Trial Court in the impugned order holding that ...
Khushiram Beharilal Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT129TriDel
1. The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 28-4-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. The application has been filed under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking waiver of requirement of pre-deposit. During the hearing of the application, we were of opinion that the appeal itself should be heard and disposed, waiving the requirement of pre-deposit since the need for remand was highlighted. Accordingly, we heard both sides on the questions arising in the appeal.2. Appellant imported 80 Tonnes of Cloves of Zanzibar origin through a supplier in Singapore. Invoice dated 31-1-1997 indicates the price to be Rs. 18,5357- PMT CIF Bombay (Rs. 18,535/- per kg.), the total price being Rs. 14,82,800.00. Bill of Entry dated 4-4-1997 was submitted along with valid import licences after fulfilling export obligation and clearance was sought. Custom House was of the opinion that the correct value would be Rs. 32.46 per kg. CIF, i.e. Rs. 25,97,040/- in all and...
Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Remco Paper and Board Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT567TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order passed by Collector (Appeals), Ahmedabad. Heard both sides with reference to the appeal filed by the department.2. The respondents were availing benefit in terms of Notification No.25/84, dated 1-3-1984 upto 31-3-1986. According to the department the Notification No. 138/86, dated 1-3-1986 supercedes the earlier notification and accordingly the respondents are not entitled to benefit for the period March, 1986. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that the very notification itself specifies that notification shall come into force from the 1st day of April, 1986.Accordingly the respondents were entitled to benefit in terms of old notification upto 31-3-1986. This view was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) in his impugned order.3. On going through the facts and circumstances, particularly the specific clause that notification 138/86 shall come into force from 1st day of April, 1986/ we concur with...
Bharat Udyog Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT569TriDel
1. The assessees were engaged in the activity of manufacturing M.S.wires from duty paid Wire Rods. Such wires were exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 75/67. This notification was rescinded by Notification No. 113/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 whereby the assessees were entitled to take proforma credit on duty paid rods in clearing wires on payment of duty. On 7-7-1984 a show cause notice was issued to the assessees alleging that duty during 1-8-1980 to 6-4-1981 amounting to Rs. 7,12,967.64 paise was liable to be paid by them since they have resorted to suppression of facts of manufacturing of such wires to evade licensing control over their unit. After hearing the assessees, the Collector passed the impugned order confirming the demand and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessees.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, referred to memorandum dated 16-3-1974 from the jurisdictional superintendent addressed to the appellants. This memorandum disposed of an earli...
Paragon Cable Corpn. and anr. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1997
Reported in: (1997)(72)LC661Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals involving a common issue for determination and as such these are clubbed together in this common order.2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables. They are neither registered as SSI unit with the Director of Industries/Development Commissioner nor with the DGTD. The appellants were eligible for the benefit of Clause 2 of Notification No. 1/93 dt. 28.2.1993, wherein an assessee is entitled to duty-free clearance upto Rs. 30.00 lakh. The department alleged that since the appellants were entitled to duty-free clearance upto Rs. 30.00 lakh, they were not entitled to the benefit of credit of duty on inputs under the modvat scheme as they fall within the purview of Rule 57C which inter alia stipulates that if the final product is exempt, credit of duty paid on input under the modvat scheme cannot be taken.The Department issued a show cause notice asking the appellants to explain as to why the modvat credit shou...
St. Sophia's Christian Education Society Vs. K. Samuel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)285; 67(1997)DLT791; 1997(42)DRJ389
J.B. Goel, J. (1) By this order I am disposing of two applications (1) is No.8855/95 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . for ad-interim injunction and (2) is No-8856/95 under Order 40 Rule I Civil Procedure Code . for appointment of a receiver. These two applications have been filed by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration, injunction recovery of possession and rendition of accounts etc.(2) Plaintiff No. 1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 registered on 13.7.1972 with its registered office at D-23, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and plaintiff No. 2 claims to be its President. Objects included imparting of education. It started a primary school at D-23, Kirti Nagar, Delhi. This School was recognized up to primary level by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the year 1977 and later was upgraded and accorded recognition up to middle school level in 1980 to Secondary Level in the year 1982-83 and to Senior Secondary Level in 1987-8...
Mihir Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT128TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is the classification of 'air washers' manufactured by the assessee. The claim of the assessees was that the goods were classifiable under Chapter 39, being made of plastic material, or in the alternative, under Heading 84.79 as parts of machinery having individual function, not elsewhere specified. The Assistant Collector, however, classified the goods under Heading 84.15.The Collector (Appeals) on the observation that the air washer was designed to be used in Central Air-conditioning Plants, held that its classification under Heading 84.15 was more appropriate.2. Shri V.B. Joshi, ld. Advocate presenting the case of the appellants, urged that the classification, initially suggested by them, was preferable over the one adopted by the department. He placed before us a copy of the pamphlet showing a visual representation of the article and technical details. On perusal of the technical details and the illustration, it becomes clear that the article d...
United Forgings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT41TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal, dated 23-1-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi in which he held that steel grinding balls manufactured by the appellants are classifiable under Tariff Heading 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as other articles of iron and steel and the Collector also upheld the finding of adjudicating authority in respect of extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Brief facts of the case are that show cause notice dated 12-10-1987 was issued to the appellant stating therein that appellants had not filed classification list for approval in respect of steel grinding media balls as required under Rule 173B of Central Excise Act, 1944. It was also mentioned in the show cause notice that these steel grinding media balls manufactured with the help of screw friction machine and directly goes in use without any machining and therefore...
Ablaze Process Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT402TriDel
1. The present application is for waiver of duty of Rs. 44,53,487.65 and of a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-imposed on the applicants.2. Shri Abrol appearing as the authorised representative of the applicants, being one of its Directors, submitted that the issue involved in the appeal is the classification of glass and glasswares manufactured by them competing sub-heading of Central Excise Tariff 70.12 and 70.15. The applicants claimed that their product would fall under the former sub-heading as laboratory glassware. The Commissioner however in the impugned order has held that they are of industrial use and they are to be classified under the latter sub-heading. Shri Abrol however pleaded that the department cannot invoke the longer period for demanding the duty under Section 11A because the applicants have not suppressed any facts from the department. He referred to the representation made to the Board by the Small Scale Industries Association listing out the items of products requiring ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »