Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1997 Page 18 of about 214 results (0.010 seconds)Jajodia Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT553TriDel
2. Arguing for the appellants Shri G. Shivadass submitted that show cause notice was issued on the following grounds :- (a) Duty of Rs. 3,63,445.63 on HDPE tapes captively consumed during the period 19-12-1986 to 2-2-1987 on the ground that the said tapes have been consumed in the manufacture of HDPE rendering the appellants ineligible to the exemption provided under Rule 49. (b) Duty of Rs. 35,217.60 demanded on the quantity of 8,700 Kgs. of HDPE tapes captively consumed in the manufacture of HDPE fabrics during the month of March, 1986 on the same ground indicated above. (c) Duty of Rs. 7,38,418.45 on HDPE tapes captively consumed during the period 1-3-1986 to 31-1-1987 for stitching of woven fabrics on the ground that concessional rate of duty was available only if the HDPE tapes were intended for weaving of fabrics of sacks. (d) Duty of Rs. 2,48,762.91 during the period 20-11-1986 to 18-12-1986 on HDPE sacks manufactured out of the circular looms which were not eligible for exempt...
Tag this Judgment!Oen (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT268TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin dated 25-3-1988 by which the Collector had confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,74,941.78 against the appellants.2. The appellants are manufacturers of electro-mechanical electronic components like switches, relays and potentiometers. The appellants purchase silver strips/coils containing 90% silver for purposes of fabricating precious metal contacts like the rotor blades, clips etc.The process involve punching out the components from silver strips using presses and progressive tools. The portion of the strips remaining with holes corresponding to the outside shape of the component punched out is returned by the appellants to the supplier of silver strips for reprocessing them into strip form again. The appellants had been returning the remnant portion of silver strips till 1-3-1986 to the suppliers and were receiving them back after reprocessing under Rule 56C. At that time silver strips were dutiable at 12%. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mount Conductors Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT260TriDel
1. When the matter was called none was present for the appellants.However, it is seen that the appellants have by letter received in the Registry on 18-10-1996 requested for decision on merits on the basis of their Memorandum of Appeal.3. The appellants are engaged in re-drawing of duty paid copper rods, flats/bars and strips by way of reducing the dimension of these items and claimed benefit of Rule 173H. By his order dated 22-10-1986 Assistant Collector, Bombay held that though further drawing of hot rolled copper rods, flats and bars was not a process of manufacturing chargeable to duty at the appropriate rate prior to 1-4-1984, after amendment of T.I. 26A from 1-4-1984 it become excisable under Notification No. 174/84, dated 1-8-1984 as amended. He also held that they were not entitled to the benefit of Rule 173H. The Collector (Appeals) by his order dated 17-7-1987 confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector.4. In the Memorandum of Appeal the appellants have contended that the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Orient Cerwool Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT546TriDel
1. The short point to be considered in this appeal is whether "edge trimming and shots" arising during the manufacture of ceramic wool and articles thereto are chargeable to duty. The Assistant Collector held that the edge trimmings are chargeable to duty at 15% Adv. under Heading 68.03. It was contended on behalf of the party that the edge trimming and shots are waste matters arising during the course of manufacture of ceramic wool and articles thereof. It has not been produced by process of manufacture and the said waste are not excisable goods. In order to levy duty of excise on substance the substance should satisfy the definition of goods and it must have emerged out of a process called as "manufacture". He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of South Bihar Sugar Mills (ECR-257 S.C.) and D.C.M. Ltd. [ECR-C-1-216-1981 (SC)] and decision in the ease of Modi Rubber Ltd. reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 502. On an appeal filed by the party the Collector (Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT661TriDel
1. The Appellants who are engaged in the printing/newspaper industry imported consignment consisting of Portable Picture Transmitter including Boosters, Automatic Picture Receiver, Dry Silver paper and spare parts and sought assessment for the same under Heading 9801.00 of CTA, 1975 which was rejected by the authorities below on the ground that the imported goods did not increase the installed capacity of the existing unit which was required in terms of Notification 230/86 for assessment under Heading 98.01. The use of the item has been explained by the Appellants as direct transmission of the Photographs from the file to the press as ready to use prints which saves time. On number of occasions new pages are kept waiting for arrival of Photographic prints through OCS as wire-photo, the authorities below have considered that this would no doubt result in saving time and be of great utility for newspapers printing; however, this is not sufficient for the purpose of assessment under Head...
Tag this Judgment!Khaitan Electricals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT343TriDel
1. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi dated 25-5-1987 appellants, M/s. Khaitan Electricals, Faridabad have filed this appeal. By the impugned order Collector had confirmed a demand of Rs. 4,96,170.61 on 40,094 pieces of rotors and stators falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 30. A penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- was also imposed on the appellants.2. Appellants are manufacturers of electric fans. They were issued a show cause notice on 30-8-1984 and a corrigendum on 3-12-1984 alleging that they had cleared 40,094 pieces of stators and rotors falling under T.I. 30 without payment of excise duty. It was alleged that they had misused the facility of proforma credit under Notification No. 9583, dated 1-3-1983 under Rule 56A inasmuch as they had availed proforma credit on electric stampings and laminations but had not paid duty on the final product, namely, rotors and stators.3. The allegation was denied by the appellants stating that rotors and stators had been c...
Tag this Judgment!Jagatjit Industries Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT509TriDel
1. The captioned 7 appeals arise out of the demands of duty for the Months of April, 1993, May, 1993, June, 1993, July, 1993, August, 1993 and September, 1993 and for the period from April, 1993 to September, 1994. A show cause notice was issued on 15-10-1993 in respect of these demands.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of food preparations such as Maltova and Viva covered under Chapter Heading 1901.19. In the process of manufacture of these food preparations, malt extract arises. The appellants were paying duty on malt extract and taking Modvat credit on this item and utilising credit of duty so taken for payment of duty on Maltova/Viva. The Notification No. 82/87, dated 1-3-1987 inter alia provided that the goods captively consumed shall be exempted. In the instant case, the malt extract was captively consumed in the food preparations, therefore, the department alleged that since the malt extract was exempt, the question of payment of du...
Tag this Judgment!Kharaiti Lal and Sons Vs. Hari Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT753
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) The applicant/defendant No. 1 raising the question of validity prays for constituting a large Bench (Full Bench) for striking down the nonobstante clause in Chapter X-A (Commissions) in the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules vide I.A. No. 875/97. (2) In order to appreciate the contention in this regard, it would be necessary to state few facts. Civil Suit No. 27/79 came to be filed by the plaintiff M/s. Kharaiti Lal & Sons against defendant No. 1-Hari Singh and others for the specific performance of agreement dated 9.9.1978 for the sale of immovable property. In the said suit, the plaintiff was cross-examined by defendant No. 1 on22.9.1989,6.11.1990,11.2.1993, 12.2.1993, 18.8.1993, 19.8.1993, 20.8.1993 and 3.9.1993. The order dated 3.9.1993 suggests that this Court found that no further opportunity should be granted to defendant No. 1 for further cross-examination of the plaintiff and the case was directed to be listed on 2.11.1994 to 4.11.1994 for the evidence of...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT19
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner was enrolled as a soldier in the army on 26.4.1994. He joined the -training in PL-7 Sakardu Training Company, at the Jammu and Kashmir Rifle Regimental Centre under the command of Major H.S. Bhagat, respondent No. 3. (2) According to the petitioner, on 10.9.1994, L/Hav. Ashwani Patiyal under the threat of physical punishment, and mental torture forced him to sign some papers which were used as application for discharge. It is alleged that on 10.9.1994, Maj. H.S. Bhagat recommended discharge under Rule 13(3) item Iv on compassionate ground although there was no provision of discharge the petitioner on compassionate ground in the Rules. (3) On 16.9.1994, Battalion Commander Col. K.K. Chandal recommended discharge of the petitioner. The petitioner made representation to Hav. Rudra Khawas against his alleged request for discharge immediately after he had learnt about the same. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not given discharge certificat...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. Universal Information Commn.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT543TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the product referred to as 'Display Equipment'. The respondents M/s. Universal Information Communication Equipment Ltd., Bombay, had classified the said Display Equipment under Heading No.90.13 of the Central Excise Tariff. A show cause notice was issued on 5-6-1987 alleging that the said goods were classifiable under Heading No. 90.09 of the Tariff as parts of the photocopying machine. The matter was adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, who without specifically discussing the nature of the product or its use decided that all the six products which were the subject matter of the show cause notice dated 5-6-1987 were classifiable under Heading No. 90.09 of the Tariff. He also denied the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, accepted the contention of the appellants that these goods i.e. 'Displ...
Tag this Judgment!