Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 12 of about 203 results (0.008 seconds)Shri Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT416TriDel
2. The appellant herein imported a part described as 'regulating sensor'. They cleared the same on payment of duty. Later on they filed claim for excess duty paid by them. They claimed the benefit of Notification No. 172/89-Cus. in their refund application claiming that the goods are assessable under Tariff Heading 90.33. The said application was rejected by the original authority namely the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division Ujjain, who is having the jurisdiction over the warehouse where the goods after importation were deposited after warehousing. The said Asst. Collector held that the part being a part of Texturing machine is not covered under Tariff Heading 90.33.2. Apart from the said finding, the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim on the ground that the burden of incidence of duty is deemed to have been passed on to the consumers when the goods, as part of texturing machine, are used in the manufacture of other goods inasmuch as texturing machine was u...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Elite Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT335TriDel
1. The issues involved in this appeal of the Revenue are the classification of trailor frame assembly and simultaneous eligibility to Modvat credit and exemption under Notification 175/86. The appeal submits that the correct classification of the item is under 8716 as held in the order-in-original and that the order-in-appeal was erroneous in overturning this classification. Arguing the appeal, Shri S. Nunthuk, ld. JDR submits that Tariff Item 8716 covers trailors and parts thereof. The trailor frame assembly is a part of trailor and therefore it is correctly classifiable under TI 8716. He also submits that the impugned order has gone by the utility of the trailor frame in transporting harvester combine blades and has changed the classification accordingly. He contends that reliance should not have been placed on the utilization of the product while deciding its classification, when the classification is specifically provided for under 8716.Shri Nunthuk also submits that the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Tirupati Foams (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC213
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad confirming a demand of Rs. 7,03,017/- on waste, paring and scrap of flexible polyurethane foam, by denying the benefit of Notification 53/88 at SI. No. 24 of the Table annexed thereto on the ground that they were already entitled to the benefit of Notification 54/88 under Sl. Nos. 2 and 6 of the Table annexed thereto. The period of demand is March 1988 to Feb. 1990 while the show cause notice is dated 19-8-1991.2. We have heard Shri Uday Joshi, learned Advocate for the appellants who submits that the demand is barred by limitation in the absence of any suppression or wilful intent to evade payment of duty since the classification lists for the period in dispute in which the benefit of Notification 53/88 was claimed (in contrast to the earlier classification lists where the benefit of Notification 54/88 was claimed and extended), were approved in view of Trade Notice No. 67/89, dated 5-5-1989 clar...
Tag this Judgment!Liberty Shoes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT422TriDel
2. The appellants herein imported synthetic counters of footwear and declared the goods as footwear components for leather industry in the Bill of Entry filed by them, in order to avail the benefit of Notification No. 45/94-Cus. The benefit of the said notification has been denied by the lower authorities on the ground that the 'counters' imported by the appellants are not meant for leather footwear inasmuch as leather is not predominant in the footwear in which those counters are going to be used as per the contention of the appellants. The concept that leather should be the major portion of the footwear to qualify at as leather footwear has been brought in by the authorities on their own. The Asstt. Collector in the Order-in-Original dated 7-11-1994, purportedly relied on some opinion while he states as follows in para 14 of the Order. "According to international norms the footwear with visible surface of more than 70% leather is considered as 'leather footwear'. In India footwear o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Mewar Sugar Mills Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT124TriDel
1. The appeal has been filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. 74-CE/JPR/97 dated 5-5-1997 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi whereby the latter had allowed the appeal filed before her by M/s. Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd., respondent herein, holding them to be eligible for Modvat credit for the following items under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 by setting aside the order-in-original dated 29-9-1995 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Udaipur :- While the decision was taken on merits for items 1,2,3 and 5, for the item at Sl. No. 4, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the non-filing of declaration was only a procedural lapse which cannot bar the grant of substantive Modvat concession.2. In the appeal, it is contended that the impugned order is not legal and correct as the definition of capital goods as per Rule 57Q did not cover goods used in relation to manufacture as the words used in Explanat...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Modi Xerox Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT419TriDel
1. The appeals are from Revenue. These involve a common issue, namely whether 'stand assembly' for desk top photocopier is to be treated as cupboard of steel (non-wooden) so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 80/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990. Revenue contends that the aforesaid stand assembly sold as desk top copier cabinets is of the nature of cupboard which falls under the excluded category in Sl. No. 4 of table to the aforesaid Notification.2. We have heard both sides. We are of the view that the contention of the Revenue is not correct, inasmuch as the said stand assembly has holes on its top for proper and firm fixing of the photocopier on the top even though the said stand assembly may be having some shelf below the top for keeping stationery etc. But that feature by itself will not make the stand assembly as a cupboard. Holes on the top of the stand assembly take it away from the category of cupboard. No evidence has been brought on record at all by the Revenue that the said...
Tag this Judgment!Loten Electricals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(105)ELT300TriDel
The appellants herein started their unit at Baroda sometime in August, 1984 for manufacturing Switch gear falling under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. A partnership deed was executed amongst 4 partners having shares of 20%, 20%, 30% and 30% respectively.2. Prior to commencement of this Unit at Baroda the same partners were having another Unit with the same firm name at Bombay with equal percentage in profit and loss under a separate partnership deed.3. It was alleged by the Revenue that the goods manufactured by the Unit at Bombay of the partnership firm at Bombay had exceeded Rs. 40 lakhs in clearances from their factory at that place during the preceding financial year 1983-84. The authorities below feeling that since all the partners in both partnership firms at Bombay and Baroda are the same, manufacturers are having 2 units, one at Bombay and another at Baroda. It was therefore, felt by the authorities below that the clearances of the unit at Baroda during...
Tag this Judgment!Nepal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT336TriDel
1. This appeal of Shri Nepal Singh is directed against the confiscation of his truck under adjudication Order No. 45/95 of the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow dated 12-9-1997. The truck was confiscated as the same was used in the smuggling of dry ginger from Nepal to India. The adjudication order also confiscates dry ginger under Section 111D of the Customs Act, as it has been held to be not of Nepalese origin and is not permitted to be imported.2. Arguing the appeal, Shri M.C. Sharma, ld. Advocate, submits that confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act was not legal at all. The truck was a public carrier and the same is not liable to confiscation unless the owner or his agent was aware of the offending nature of the goods. With regard to the awareness of the owner of the truck about the offending nature of the goods, the ld.Counsel refers us to the finding in the adjudication order that "there is no direct or indirect evidence implicating Shri Nepal Singh in ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. U. Kashyap
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)300; 1998(1)ARBLR88(Delhi); 1999(48)DRJ666
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by Delhi Development Authority is directed against the judgment dated April 29, 1994 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the objections filed by it to claim no.11 and making the award the rule of the court also in respect of that claim.2. Indisputably, work, 'C/o 256 LIG DU's (New Pattern) at Dilshad Garden, Pocket-G, Zone E-16, Delhi' was awarded by the appellant to U. Kashyap, respondent and agreement No. 390/EE/HD/15/DDA/84-85 also containing arbitration clause was executed between the parties. On dispute having arisen, R.J. Bakhru, Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D. (Retd.) was appointed as the sole arbitrator by Engineer Member of the appellant-Authority vide letter No. EM. 2/133/88/Arbn./7457-61 dated April 25, 1990 to adjudicate upon the claims of the respondent. Respondent filed the claim statement containing 16 claims. Appellant filed counter statement of facts repudiating those claims. Arbitrator made and published the award on January 30, 1991.3. Respon...
Tag this Judgment!T.T.K. Prestige Ltd. and anr. Vs. Har Prasad Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT357; 1999(1)RLR537
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. This FAO is directed against an order of dismissal of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for injunction restraining the respondents from using the registered trade mark PRE/STAGE or any other deceptively similar trade mark and from committing infringement of appellants, registered trade mark. 'PRESTIGE' during the pendency of the suit.2.1 First, the facts in brief :2.2 According to the appellant's case the trade mark 'PRESTIGE' was registered under registration No. 141602 in class 21 in respect of non-electric cooking utensils, including pressure cookers on 14th December, 1949. On 12th January, 1957 name of the registered proprietor the trade mark was changed to 'The Prestige Group Ltd., Prestige House, 14-18 Holborn London'. On 7th March, 1958, appellant No.1 earlier known as T.T. Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as licensee to use the trade mark 'PRESTIGE', in relation to pressure cookers manufactured and sold in India. It is stated that t...
Tag this Judgment!