Delhi Court August 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.
Almex International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT679TriDel
1. Appellants imported a consignment of mixed Brass Scrap metal as per ISRI Specification Honey from USA valued at approximately Rs. 17,11/063/- as non-restricted item under the Import Trade Control Policy. The Bill of Lading date as it was shown on the insurance certificate produced along with Bill of Entry for the clearance of the goods was 10-5-1996. As has been brought out in Para 2 of the impugned order by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, the subject goods were allowed for import freely up to 25-3-1996 and with effect from that date they became restricted. However, vide DGFT's letter dated 17-5-1996, grace period of 45 days was allowed if firm order had already been placed by the importer and the goods were not hazardous waste. This extended period expired on 9-5-1996. Appellant took the stand before the adjudicating authority that the date 10-5-1996 shown in the insurance policy as the Bill of Lading date was actually an error and in support of such a contention, letters ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ameteep Machines Tools
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT225TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed w.r.t. the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (A), New Delhi, dated 30th April, 1987.2. Ld. DR stated that in this case the respondents had filed a refund claim which had been rejected by the A.C. on merits as it was found that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 120/81 claimed by them in the classification list was not available to them.3. This notification allows the benefit in respect of the appliances and devices which convert agricultural or municipal waste into energy.The re pondents were manufacturers of power presses falling under Tariff Item 68 called them BRIQUETTERS. It was found that these are devices used to manufacture solid fuel in the form of BRIQUETTES and DISCS from agricultural, municipal and forest produce and were not energy producing devices. Hence, the A.C. rejected the refund claim and simultaneously corrected and revised the classification list accordingly. The Collector (A) however, allowed the appellant's petition on the...
Higher Motors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT433TriDel
1. In the instant appeal, M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. have challenged the order-in-appeal dated 17-3-1991 of the Collector (Appeals), Indore, by which Modvat credit for Rs. 3,29,461.20 was disallowed to them.2. Appellants are manufacturers of chassis of Light Commercial Vehicles (LCVS) as well as Motor vehicles classifiable under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellants availed Modvat credit on the duty paid on inputs, in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.3. During the year 1989, the appellants were issued four Show Cause Notices alleging that they had taken modvat credit wrongly on certain items and also had short paid duties on certain other items during the period, November 1988 to October 1989.4. In the initial adjudication proceedings before the Assistant Collector, the appellants contested the charges. The Assistant Collector, however, ordered recovery of Rs. 3,76,920.96 as Modvat credit wrongly availed and also directed the recovery of short payment...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Thapar Agro Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT508TriDel
1. The above appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh who has accepted the contention of the assessees/respondents that for the relevant period January and February, 1989 (Appeal No. E/4615/91-C) and April and May, 1989 (Appeal No. E/4614/91-C), they were clearing oxygen gas manufactured by them through pipeline and hence attracting duty at the rate of 32 paise per cubic metre and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector who has held that the higher rate of duty of 79 paise per metre was payable, as the gas was cleared in cylinders.2. We have heard Shri D.S. Negi, learned DR and perused the records. We find that the basis for the claim of the department that oxygen gas was cleared to M/s. Bajaj Gases in cylinders is in the gate passes, the number of cylinders have been indicated in the column (Sl. No. and description of packages). The capacity of cylinders has been shown as 6 cubic metre or 5.8 cubic me...
Gunwant Lal Godawat Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT332TriDel
1. In the captioned appeal, the appellants have challenged the confiscation of 85 silver bars recovered, among other items, after digging operations in the premises of the appellants.2. The facts of the case in brief are that digging operations were conducted in the premises of the appellants and 85 silver bars in dispute were recovered, among other items. Proceedings were drawn up in respect of other items. The appellants have already agitated the issue before the Tribunal and orders have since been passed. In the instant case, the appeal concerns with the confiscation of 65 bars of Silver recovered on 8-8-1965 and further 20 bars of silver recovered from the residential premises on 3-8-1965.3. Shri Harbans Singh, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants, submits that, in all, this case concerns with confiscation of 85 slabs of silver weighing 2910.150 kgs. He submitted that the case has a chequered history in as much as digging operations in the premises of the appellant contin...
Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT708TriDel
1. Three appeals have been filed by M/s. Mahavir Spinning Mills against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 23-1-1996. The appellants were clearing Cross Reel Hanks without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 26/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994. The yarn before being reeled into hanks underwent the stage of being wound on cones from Ring Frame Machine. The department was of the view that although the cross reel hanks were eligible for clearance without paying duty, duty had to be discharged on yarn on cones captively consumed in the manufacture of such cross reel hanks. In this case the Collector (Appeals) upheld this view and confirmed the lower orders demanding duty.2. In the appeal filed by M/s. Tuticorin Spinning Mills, the same issue was involved namely whether duty was leviable on coned yarn before its clearance for captive consumption in the manufacture of hank yarn. The Collector in this order also held against the assessee. Since these four appeals involve a common issue, these ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Basant Tubes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT311TriDel
1. The respondents herein manufacture iron and steel products falling under T.I. 25 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.Necessary permission for bringing in duty paid raw material viz. M.R.strips and skelp for the manufacture of C.R. strips and availing proforma credit thereon was granted to them in accordance with the provisions of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On 22-9-1982, they received 136.750 MTS of M.R. strips/coils from M/s. Jitendra Brothers, Bombay for which they filed D-3 intimations No. 68 and 69, dated 22-9-1982 and took proforma credit of duty amounting to Rs. 67,691.25 against the receipt of the said raw material without producing proper duty paying documents as required under Rule 56A.Therefore, a show cause-cum-demand notice for recovery of the amount of credit was issued on 15-7-1985, which demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector. The lower appellate authority set aside the adjudication order on the ground that the demand was b...
Shanti Sarup Verma Vs. Sat Narain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)837; 70(1997)DLT478; 1998(44)DRJ46
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner , who is the defendant in the suit is aggrieved by an order dated 23.2.1980, passed by the then Sub-Judge, First Class, allowing the amendment application under Order Vi Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, moved by the plaintiff.(2) The facts in brief may be noticed: (I)The plaintiff/respondent one Sh. Sat Narain filed a suit for possession against the petitioner/defendant, Sh. Shanti Sarup Verma, claiming to be the owner of House No.312, Gali Panihari, Teliwara , Delhi as per the plan attached. It was averred that one Sh. Babu Ram S/O Sh.Mam Raj was a tenant in the house at a monthly rent of Rs.17.00 . He died leaving behind no legal representatives. The defendant wrongfully and illegally, after the death of Sh. Babu Ram trespassed into the house and took unlawful possession of the property, in the tenancy of the deceased. It appears that the plaintiff applied for obtained some inconsequential amendment in October, 1978. (II)The respondent/plaintiff ...
Pentax Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT368TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Pentax Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, the Order-in-Appeal dated 26-9-1991 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay is under challenge. The matter relates to the classification of the Sensor Lower Explosive Limit Catalytic (SLELC).The appellants had classified these goods under sub-heading No. 9027.90 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, which covered microtomes; parts and accessories. The Heading No. 90.27 covered the instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis; instruments and apparatus for measuring or checking viscosity, porosity, expansion, surface tension or the like; instruments and apparatus for measuring or checking quantities of heat, sound or light. The Revenue had classified them under sub-heading No. 8531.90, which covered the parts of electronic sound or visual signalling apparatus for example bells, sirens, indicator panels, burglar or fire alarms etc. It includes the goods covered under Heading No. 85.12 or 85....
Indian Sugar and General Engg. Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)LC924Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 28-12-1989 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The appellants imported Seamless Cold Drawn Carbon Steel Tubes to Specification SA-179. The goods were assessed under the Customs Tariff Act Heading No. 7304.39 and the benefit of Notification No. 155 / 86-Cus., dated 1-3-1986 was not given to the appellants. The appellants thereafter filed a refund claim. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the goods imported by the appellants are items of general use, that apart from use as part of Heat Exchangers, these tubes have got many other applications. Therefore, the impugned goods cannot be considered to be identifiable parts of Heat Exchanger.2. The ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants submitted that these Tubes are component of the Heat Exchanger as mentioned in the bill of entry as components of Heat Exchangers. He further submitted that the Tubes imported by the appellants are of the length ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »