Delhi Court December 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.
Shree Ram Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC122Tri(Delhi)
1. Matter called. None for the appellant. They have requested for decision of the appeal on merits in view of their full-fledged submission thereon. However, they have relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 200 (S.C.). The said judgment reiterates a well-known position that Tribunal has the jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from facts as found by authorities below and having a bearing on tax liability of assessee, even though said question was not raised before the Lower authorities, nor in appeal memo before the Tribunal but sought to be added latter as an additional ground by a separate letter.2. A refund claim of Rs. 8,23,537.51 was filed by the appellant on admission of their claim regarding classification of the goods. In the meantime duty had been paid under protest by the appellants herein.3. On receipt of the claim the show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 26-11-1996, asking them to explain as to why their cla...
Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT319TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh who has rejected the refund claim filed by the assessees as a consequence of classification by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh of Maggi Two Minute Noodles under CET Heading 1902, as hit by the bar of unjust enrichment.2. Shri P. Sridhar, learned Advocate fairly points out that the classification dispute came to the Tribunal by the Revenue filing an appeal on classification, order dated 27-9-1991 and that the Tribunal by its Final Order No. E/56/94-D, dated 3-2-1994, set aside the classification under Heading 1902.90 and accepted the Revenue's contention of classification under sub-heading 1902.10. Since the basis of refund claim namely classification of the goods under sub-heading 1902.90 has been set aside by the Tribunal under the final order cited (supra), the result is that the appellants are not entitled to the refund, on the merits of the matter itself. In this view ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT382TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed the Revenue assailing the order of the Collector (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) held that "The appeal was listed for personal hearing and argued by Shri Y.D. Gupta and Shri S.K. Khaitan. A written submission was also handed over by learned Advocate. On going through the facts of the case and hearing the appellant, I hold that the paper manufactured by the appellants is uncoated paper, some of which is subjected to a finishing process of calendering and super calendering. This process is not a coating process but only imparts a glazing look. Properties of the paper remain unchanged. Explanatory notes to "Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System" supports this view. Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 48 reads clearly : Heading Nos. 48.01 to 48.05 include paper and paper board which have been subjected to calendering, super calendering, glazing or similar finishing, false water-marking or surface sizing, and also paper, paper boar...
Multiweld Wire Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT41TriDel
1. In this case, a demand of Rs. 7,24,511.70 has been confirmed against the Appellants herein on the ground that this amount of duty was payable since they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No.206/63, dated 30-11-1963.2. The Appellants are manufacturers of Welded Wire mesh falling under T.I. 68. They filed a classification list claiming benefit of Notification above mentioned which is available to Iron or Steel products made from different specified inputs viz., (i) Fresh un-used re-rollable scrap on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid, (ii) Semi-finished steel including blooms, billets, slabs, sheet bars, tin bars and hoe bars, on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid, (iv) Other iron or steel products, falling under sub-item (ia) of Item No. 26AA of the said First Schedule on which the appropriate duty of excise has already been paid; from payment of the whole of the duty of excise leviable on such produc...
Jai Rolling Mills (P) Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT117TriDel
1. By the captioned stay application, the applicants have requested for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 7,74,630/-.2. The facts of the case are that the applicants are manufacturing Hot Re-rolled Product. They opted for payment of duty under Rule 96ZP(3).The appellants made provisional deposit of Rs. 2 lac for the month of September, 1997 and October, 1997. On 12-3-1998, they submitted an application for withdrawing themselves from the option of payment of duty under Rule 96ZP(3) and to opt for Rule 96ZP(1) of the Rules on the ground that during the month of September, 1997 and October, 1997, the appellants' production activities were in operation for ten days which ultimately resulted in final closure of the factory and/or production from 9-10-1997. The Commissioner after considering the submissions made, held that "I reject the representation, dated 12-3-1998 made by the party for determination of duty liability under Rule 96ZP(1) for the past period, instead of Rule ...
Krishna Carbon Paper Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT392TriDel
1. In this appeal by M/s. Krishna Carbon Paper Co., Lakhimpur, the duty of Rs. 26,057/- has been demanded by the adjudicating authority, Dy.Collector of Central Excise and redemption fine of Rs. 5,0007- and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- had also been imposed. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of carbon paper. On a visit by the Central Excise Officers on 23-10-1986, a private note book was found on the table of the factory Manager. The entries in the note book when co-related with the excise records indicated non-accountal of the excisable goods. A statement was recorded of the authorized signatory and the differential duty was arrived at after extending the benefit of Small Scale Exemption available up to Rs. 15 lakhs. It was also found that there were certain stocks ready for despatch which had not been accounted for in the excise records. The order passed by the Dy.Collector of Central Excise was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta who observed ...
V.R. Panikar Vs. Lt. Col. A.K. Behal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)636; 77(1999)DLT317; 1999(48)DRJ16
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated August 25, 1998 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. 2. The respondent filed a petition against the petitioner for eviction from the ground floor of House No.87, Uday Park, New Delhi under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The premises were originally let out to Shri S. Krishnan Nayyar in January, 1976 and the terms and conditions were incorporated in the lease-deed dated April 29, 1976. After his demise in October/November, 1985 the premises were occupied by his sister Mrs.J.R.Pannikar and after her death in August/September, 1986 her son who is the present petitioner has been living as a tenant in the premises. The respondent claimed that the premises were let out for residential purposes and are now required bona fide by him for residence of himself and his dependent family members. He has no other ...
Bhagwan Electro Photocopiers Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT66TriDel
1. M/s. Bhagwan Electronic Photocopiers have filed the present appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 29-11-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).2. The facts in brief are that the appellants imported used Photocopiers' main frame with Hardware and P.C.B. They declared the assessable value as Rs. 1,06,625.47. The clearance of the goods was sought under Special Import Licence (SIL). The Additional Collector of Customs ordered confiscation of the imported goods with an option to importer to redeem the goods on payment of fine Rs. 1,00,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- holding that as the goods imported were sub-assemblies and not components of photocopier, the same were not covered by the Special Import Licence, that since the goods imported constituted 60% of the complete photocopier, he enhanced the value thereof. On appeal, the Commissioner Customs (Appeals) confirmed the adjudication order holding that import documents indicated that used photocopiers had been...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Kwality Metal Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT323TriDel
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad, extending the benefit of Notification 180/88 to items listed herein below, manufactured by the 3 different respondents herein :11. Idli Stand 12. Ghamela and Basin with and without handle The benefit has been extended treating the various items enumerated above as utensils of aluminium. According to the Revenue, the items are not utensils as understood and as defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary and the Revenue's reliance is also upon the Tribunal's order reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 142 in the case of CCE v. Sandeep Metal Industries.2. Notice for today's hearing was issued to the respondents; however, none appears on behalf of the respondents and hence we heard Shri Negi, learned SDR and perused the records.3. In the decision relied upon by the Revenue, the definition of utensils as contained in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has been pressed into service for holding t...
Mistry Paints (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: (1998)(105)ELT315TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Mistry Paints (P) Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was available to the excisable goods affixed with brand name of another manufacturer before issue of Notification No. 223/87, dated 22-9-1987 amending Notification No. 175/86.2. Shri Rajeev Batra, learned Advocate submitted that besides manufacturing their own goods, they were also manufacturing branded paints and varnishes for Asian Paints India Ltd., and M/s. Goodlass Nerolac and were availing benefit of exemption under Notification No.175/86, dated 1-3-1986. Notification No. 175/86 was amended by Notification No. 223/87, dated 22-9-1987 making the benefit of notification not available to the goods affixed with the brand name of another person. Two show cause notices were issued to them for demanding the duty on clearances of branded goods for the period from March, 1987 to 30th September, 1987. The Asstt. Collector under order dated 31-3-1992 dropped the deman...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »