Delhi Court November 1998 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gujarat Cup Company and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC463
1. M/s. Gujarat Cup Company are engaged in the manufacture of paper cups used for packaging/serving ice creams, srikhand, gulab jamuns.tea, coffee, water, etc. falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. Classification of the goods was approved under CET Sub-heading 4819.12 but the assessees' claim for exemption under Notification 175/86 dated 1.3.86 was denied on the ground that the unit was a small scale ancilliary unit and. therefore, not of the category of SSI unit which alone was covered by the Notification. Vide Order dated 26.6.92. the lower appellate authority upheld the Assistant Collector's order on classification: however, he extended the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification 175/86. placing reliance on Ministry of Industry's clarification dated 19.3.79 that a small scale unit includes a small scale ancilliary industry having investment in plant and machinery not exceeding the prescribed limit (The assessees had also obtained a permanent registration ce...
Ghazipur Engineering Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT444TriDel
1. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits. Hence we heard the learned DR and perused the records.2. The issue for determination in this appeal is as to whether M/s. Jay Engineering Works Ltd., who were supplying components and raw materials to the appellants at a mutually agreed price and purchasing all the table fans produced by the appellants, are a related person of the appellants. The appellants contend that in identical circumstances, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad had held that the appellants and M/s. Jay Engineering Works were not related persons and this order has been upheld by the Tribunal as seen from Final Order No.722/98-A dated 12-5-1998 in which the Tribunal held that there is no material to show the existence of interest in the business of the manufacturer and the buyer and that in the absence of any relationship as contemplated under Section 4(4) (c) of the Central Excise Act being established, the manufacturers cannot be directed to ...
Shubham Dyes and Chemicals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT215TriDel
1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of coal tar distilled phenol (hydrated) and sought clearance of the same under sub-heading 2707.60 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff. Samples were drawn and sent for chemical test and reported to be of 90.05% by weight of purity of phenol, rest being water and the anydrous sample is pure phenol by weight. Based upon the chemical test report and the analytical report of the supplier that the purity on dry basis was 99.93%, the Assistant Collector held that the goods were 100% pure organic compound considered to be a separately defined chemical which is excluded from Chapter 27 of the CTA, 1975. He, therefore, classified it under Heading 29.07.2. The lower appellate authority having upheld the order of the adjudicating authority, the importers have filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.3. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice; hence we heard Shri Sumit Das, learned DR and persued the records.4. It is the claim of th...
Hindustan Cocoa Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT490TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the appellants involving common issue and, therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Arguing for the appellants, in support of the appeals filed by the appellants, Shri Sheth, Id. Advocate submitted that the dispute is in respect of gems and Mr. Pops. In the Appeal No. E/5960/92-D, the Commissioner (Appeals) has classified the item gems under Heading 18.04 and in the second appeal, the Commissioner has correctly classified the very item under 18.03. He submitted that though the party has filed an appeal, in respect of classification of product i.e. Mr. Pops in Appeal No. E/534/95-D is not pressing the same.3. Shri Sangia, Id. DR appearing for the Revenue fairly conceded that up to 1988, the Commissioner has classified the product "gems" under 18.04 and for the period 1990, the same item was classified under Heading 18.04 and since there is no difference in rate of duty, he leaves it to the Bench.4. We have ...
Starwars Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT327TriDel
1. The appellants in this case were manufacturing cotton fabrics without the aid of power. To this affect, they had filed a declaration and were not following the provisions of the Central Excise law relating to maintenance of records, etc. On a visit to the plant, the officers found that a 3 hp. electric motor was connected with mercerising machine with arrangements to activate the motor. On the assumption that textiles were made with the aid of power, the officers seized the finished textiles. In his statement the Director of Company stated that they were using power only for lifting water from the well to the tank; that they were manufacturing textiles without the aid of power and the mercerising machine was Connected with the motor because it had jammed and power was being used to free it. It was, further, claimed that the machine was very light and could not be operated with power at all. The statement of an employee, namely, M.A. Misra was also recorded in which he denied that t...
Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC709
1. The present reference has arisen out of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. Two Members had differed. One of the Members suggested that the matter should be referred to the Larger Bench in view of the fact that the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Roche Products Limited; in the case of M/s. Glaxo Labs (T) Limited; in the case of M/s. Punjab Bone Mills and in the case of M/s. Protin Kem had held that the goods were classifiable under Heading 23.02 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA 1985) and that in the case of M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., the Tribunal had held that the goods were classifiable under Heading 29.36 of CETA 1985. Therefore, a reference was made to the third Member who held that the matter may be referred to the Larger Bench. Accordingly, the issue was formulated as "whether preparations of a kind used in animal feeding consisting of one or more vitamins mixed with diluents etc. are classifiable under Heading 29.36 as held in ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Marigold Paints
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT648TriDel
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad by which he has held that the additional trade discount and secondary packing charges are permissible deductions from the assessable value of the paints and varnishes manufactured by the respondents herein.2. Since the respondents have asked for a decision on merits, we heard Shri S.P. Rao, learned DR and perused the records.3. We find that identical issues have been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Bee Pee Coating Ltd. (Final Order No. 739-740/95-A, dated 8-11-1995). In this order, the Tribunal has held that the question of deduction of additional trade discount (allowed by the principal to its dealers) is a question of fact depending entirely on the materials which the assessees place before the authorities concerned, either by way of records of the principal or by way of statements given by the principal to the assessees, and that the assessees are not entitled to deduction of wha...
Sabirbhai, Ibrahimbhai Gandhi Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT591TriDel
1. Relevant facts for the disposal of these two matters are as follows :- 2. The appellants herein are the owners of two buses. While the buses were coming back from Nepal with passengers therein, smuggled goods worth Rs. 15 lakhs (approximate) in each bus were found.3. It has come on record that the said goods were loaded in the buses by Salim Chhipa and his associates despite the protest from the passengers from the buses. Salim Chhipa was the person who was organising the tour for the passengers of the buses and had taken the buses from Ahmedabad to Nepal and back on hire from the appellants. The buses were provisionally released on execution of personal bond and against cash security of Rs. 75,000/- each. The impugned order however confiscated the buses without giving any option to the owners of the buses to redeem them on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. It is against the said order that appellant are before us.4. Learned Consultant Shri K. M. Makwana for the appellants s...
Shankar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT655TriDel
1. The assessees were manufacturing LDPE coated HDPE products. The process of lamination is shown in paragraph 4 of the show cause notice which reads as under :- "4. The Officers in the course of their checks, studied the process of manufacture of HDPE coated fabrics with LDPE, the main raw material used which was found/observed as under:- "The LDPE granules are fed to the hopper of extruder. The granules : are melted by heater attached to barrel, the melted LDPE extruded through a slit die in form of film of molten LDPE which crops on moving HDPE fabrics and pressed between two calender rolls to proper bending. The laminated/ coated fabric is continuously wound into rolls on the winder." From the above process of manufacture, the officers observed that (a) the flexible plastics film is emerging during the manufacturing of the above said products (b) the said film is visible (c) the film is coming out from extruder and falling on base material in the form of molten thin film which is ...
En Veeka Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ARBLR298(Delhi); 77(1999)DLT155; 1998(47)DRJ726; (1999)121PLR49
M.K. Sharma, J.1. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties in respect of the work contract awarded by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner, the said disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of respondent No. 2. The arbitrator after perusing the evidence and upon hearing the parties passed an award on 31st August, 1985 as against which objections have been filed by both the parties. The petitioner has filed objections in respect of the findings of the arbitrator as against claim Nos.1,2,6,7 and 8, whereas the respondent has also filed an objection, which was registered as I.A. No. 7303/96 as against the award of the arbitrator in respect of claim Nos. 3,4,5, 8,11,12,15 and 16. Preliminary objection is also raised by the respondent that the entire claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation. The said issue was also raised before the arbitrator, who on appreciation of evidence, held that the claims of the petitioner were not barred by limitation. 2. I have heard...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »