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.
Bhai Sunder Das and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT416TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order dated 27-10-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. In the impugned order, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed as time barred.2. Shri P.S. Bedi, Consultant, appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the copy of the enforcement order was nerver served upon the appellants. They have only came to know about the enforcement order in the year 1994 and thereafter on 17-2-1994, they approached the concerned authorities for certified copy of the enforcement order which was supplied to them on 24-2-1994. Thereafter, the appellants filed the appeal which was within time from the date of the issue of the certified copy of the enforcement order. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remended to the Commissioner of Customs for deciding the appeal on merits.3. In this case, the appeal of the appellants was dismissed by the Commissioner of Customs as time barred.4. I...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Gwalior Leather and Tent Factory
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT179TriDel
1. The respondents in this appeal from Revenue were manufacturing footwear exempted in terms of Notification No. 88/77-C.E., dated 9-5-1977. On 24-6-1981, the Preventive Officer visited the factory and on examination of the attendance registers concluded that the factory was operated with power and the number of workers was in excess of 49.On the assumption that the benefit of the notification was not available, a show cause notice was issued. The Additional Collector in his decision confirmed the demand of duty, confiscated certain goods but permitted redemption on payment of fine, but refrained in imposing any penalty. On an appeal being filed by the assessees, the Tribunal in their Order No. E/181/87-D, dated 9-3-1987 held, following the ratio of the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Mrs. Kaushalya Narayanan and Ors. v. Dadajee Dhackjee & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 102 (Bom.) that for purpose of determination as to whether the assessees were eligible f...
Poly Bag Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT669TriDel
1. The dispute is in respect of classification of HDPE/PP, Tape, Fabrics and Woven Sacks. The Items were classified under Chapter Heading Nos. 54 and 63 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. However, it is brought to our notice since the Madhya Pradesh has given a verdict that these items have been classifiable under Chapter 39 of the GET in the case of Rajpack Well Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 201 (M.P.), the Tribunal has been consistently remanding the matter for reconsideration. In view of the Rajpack Well Ltd. v. Union of India and following the consistency of the Tribunal, the matter is remanded to the concerned jurisdictional Assistant Collector to decide the issue afresh in the light of the decision referred to above and claim of the party may be considered with reference to any other notification if it is permissible. Appeal is allowed by way of remand....
Pee Jay International Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT507TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed by the applicants for the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 10 lacs and stay of the recovery proceedings.2. Arguing for the applicants in support of the stay application Shri Hari Om Arora submitted that it was charged that there was mis-declaration of 'Mohair' as 'Scoured Raw Wool'. He submitted that there was no difference between Mohair and Raw Wool and in fact, he submitted in spite of the request made by the party to cross-examine the Chemical Examiner, was not allowed. He said that the orders suffer from denial of principles of natural justice. Since opportunity was not given to the party for cross-examination of the concerned Chemical Examiner and further more the relevant evidence placed by the party has not been considered by the adjudicating authority. Apart from that the appellants have paid the duty amount of Rs. 11,10,572/- including differential duty amounting to Rs. 8,89,250/- voluntarily. Furthermore, the department has not rel...
instrumentation Engineers Pvt. Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT92TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Instrumentation Engineers Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the goods imported - Centre Shaft, Changer Gear and Gear Plate under the new Customs Tariff in force from 28-2-1986. The appellants have classified the said products under sub-heading No. 9026.90 of the Tariff as parts and accessories of the goods falling under Heading No. 90.26 which covered instruments and apparatus for measuring or checking the flow, level, pressure or other variables of liquids or gases (for example, flow meters etc.). It was the contention of the importers that the Centre Shaft, Changer Gear and Gear Plate were parts and accessories of flow meters. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, after referring to the Note 2(a) of Chapter 90 observed that the goods imported were transmission elements and were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 8483.40 of the Tariff which among others covered transmission elements.2. In their communication dated 2...
Knit-foulds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT500TriDel
1. These are appeals against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh dated 30-5-1991.2. Learned counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Vulcanised Rubber Spindle Drive Power Transmission Belts in which rubber compound content is less than 25% by weight falling under subheading No. 4010.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. The manufacturing process undertaken by the appellants in respect of various varieties of said belts manufactured by them is as under :- (a) Synthetic Rubber is mixed with certain chemicals including sulphur in the mixing mill and is calendered out in the sheet forms. (b) The sheets so obtained are cut into small pieces and the pieces so obtained are dissolved in certain chemicals so as to obtain solution of rubber. (c) Solution so obtained is coated on the fabric one to four times depending upon the thickness required. (e) Thereafter the rubberised fabric is laminated with Nylon or leather as the case may and the belti...
Varma Trafag Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT660TriDel
1. These are six appeals filed by the appellants against the common order-in-appeal dated 27-1-1992 passed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. In the impugned order the refund claim filed by the appellants was rejected.2. The appellants made an import of Micro Switches from M/s. Trafag A.G. The goods imported were assessed and they paid appropriate duty.Thereafter the appellants filed six refund claims in respect of micro switches imported by them on the ground that switches in question were with contact rating less than 5 Amp. at 250 V AC or DC are entitled to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 91/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989 as amended by Notification No. 163/89, dated 12-5-1989. Under this notification, the effective rate was 50% basic and 30% auxiliary.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that at the time of import of the consignment, the appellants were not aware of the Notification No. 91/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989 as amended, therefor...
Kanpur Plastipack Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT682TriDel
1. This appeal relates to the Order-in-Original dated 23-12-1993 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur by which duty of Rs. 12,263.00 was confirmed against the appellants apart from seizing of certain goods from their factory and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1.00 Lakh.2. The appellants, who are manufacturers of HDPE/PP woven fabrics (laminated or unlaminated), sacks and bags, were served with a show cause notice by the Collector, alleging that physical verification of goods by the Officers of Central Excise had shown that 3,90,681 numbers of HDPE/PP woven bags and 2,500 Nos. multi-layer bags had not been accounted by the Appellants in their RG 1 Register. It also alleged shortage of 57,500 HDPE/PP woven bags of different sizes, apart from non-accountal of 1,11,650 kgs. of HDPE granules. The show cause notice asked the appellants to show cause why the said goods seized during the visit of the Officers on 13-1-1992 should not be confiscated and why other appropriate action under ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. C.R. Auluck and Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT316TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of Collector (Appeals) dated 6-11-1986.2. Learned Departmental Representative stated that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Luxmi Brand Fans falling under Chapter 84.14. They had also leased out their brand name to another unit, M/s.Luxmi Engg. Works, Ludhiana. Since the brand name of both the units was 'Luxmi' as such while regulating the exemption for M/s. C.R. Auluck and Sons (P) Ltd., the quantum of clearances of Luxmi Brand Fans effected by M/s. Luxmi Engg. Works will be includible towards the value of clearances of M/s. C.R. Auluck and Sons. Accordingly, they were not entitled for exemption under Notification No. 85/85, dated 17-3-1985 and they were required to make the payment of Central Excise duty from the very beginning.3. The party had effected the clearances of the said product consequent upon the Budget for the year 1986-87 by virtue of Explanation IV of the Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1...
Gulshan Rai Vs. Director General of Anti Evasion
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT303TriDel
1. The appellants (the Proprietary concern and its Proprietor) in these two appeals have challenged the order-in-original passed by the Director General of Anti Evasion dated 31-7-1989 demanding from them a duty to the tune of Rs. 95,17,592.48. Apart from this, confiscation of building, plant and machinery belonging to M/s. Electro Photomax and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs and personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Gulshan Rai, Proprietor of appellant firm had also been imposed. The order had also given an option to the appellants for a redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. By a show cause notice dated 10-8-1984 M/s. Electro Photomax who are having factories at Delhi and Ghaziabad and its Proprietor Sh. Gulshan Rai were called upon by the Director of Anti Evasion to show cause why excise duty of Rs. 1,03,53,189.38 should not be demanded from them and why land, building, plant, machinery, material, etc. used in connection with the manufacture, storage and removal of office machines should not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »