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.
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Polymer Papers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT184TriDel
1. The respondents herein are manufacturers of PVC compound with the brand name Polybond SS 5000 and Polysol 7002 and 7005. They claimed exemption for the product in terms of Notification 206/77-C.E. as amended by Notification 70/84. The product was subjected to examination and the Chemical Examiner's report was that "the sample is in the form of a cream coloured pasty mass mainly composed of artificial resin (Poly-Vinyl-Chloride), Plasticizer (Phthalate type) inorganic filler and pigment. In trade and technology such composition is known as 'Plastisol'. In my opinion the sample may not be considered as PVC compound as commonly understood." Show cause notice dated 26-6-1985 read with corrigendum dated 16-12-1985 and 7-1-1986 was issued to the assessees proposing recovery of duty for clearances during the period from November 1981 to May 1985 and proposing imposition of penalty. The Additional Collector dropped the demand holding that, while according to the definition of Plastisol at ...
Roger Traders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT322TriDel
1. In this case, a duty demand of Rs. 1,61,049.60 P. has been confirmed on waste and scrap obtained by breaking up of barge under GET sub-heading 7215.00. A penalty of Rs. 15,0007- has also been imposed upon the assessees.2. When the case is called, none appears on behalf of the appellants despite notice; hence we have heard Shri R.D. Negi, learned DR and perused the records.3. The contention of the assessee that the activity of breaking of barge does not amount to manufacture cannot be accepted since prima facie in our view such activity is a process of manufacture. The plea that barges are not ships or boats or floating structure and even if the activity of breaking of barges is held to amount to manufacture, classification of waste and scrap so obtained would not be under Heading 7215 is also prima facie not acceptable.4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances, we direct the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards duty and on such deposit, the requirement of ...
Mass Impex Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT62TriDel
1. M/s. Mass Impex have filed these two appeals involving related issues against the order dated 23-1-1991 passed by the Additional Collector, Customs and Order-in-Appeal No. 814-C/ICD/90, dated 26-10-1990. Accordingly both these appeals are being disposed of by one common order.2.1 Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants imported "Maruzen" brand staple pin No. 10 from South Korea. In respect of Bill of Entry No. 107052, dated 13-1-1989, the Asstt. Collector, Customs, enhanced the value of the imported goods from US $ 0.5628 per dozen boxes to US $ 0.66 per dozen as 'Etone' brand boxes staple pin No. 10 was cleared at that price through other port and the country of origin in both cases was South Korea. The Collector (Appeals) also confirmed the adjudication order observing that there could not be difference in price of staple pin to the extent of 18.5% during July and November, 1988 and the importer had not shown that such difference in price was dependent on the quantity of...
Modella Steel Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT463TriDel
1. In this case, Appeal No. E/161/96-NB disposed of 21 Show Cause Notices. However, appeals have been filed only in respect of 19 Show Cause Notices. Out of these 19 appeals, one is a combined appeal and the other 18 are supplementary appeals. Appeal No. 162/96-NB disposed of 4 Show Cause Notices. In all, 4 appeals have been filed. Out of these 4 appeals, one is combined Appeal and the remaining three are supplementary appeals. As the issues involved in all these 23 Appeals is the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. It was noticed that supplementary appeals were filed much late. The combined appeals were, however, filed within time. It has been the consistent practice of the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the supplementary appeals. Following this well settled position, the delay in filing the supplementary appeals is condoned.3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Steel billets...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. New India Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)(105)ELT321TriDel
1. The Department is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise, (Appeals), Bombay holding that reed wires manufactured by the appellants herein will remain as wire and will not be classifiable as strips falling under T.I. 12 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.2. We have heard Shri D.S. Negi, learned DR and perused the records since no one appears for the respondents inspite of today's date having been noted by the respondent's Representative on the previous date.4. We find that there is no dispute that the process carried out by the respondents on the wires purchased by them is that they pass the reed wires between two rollers of a machine to produce dents of required thickness. The rolling is done at normal temperature i.e. the wires are cold rolled to produce dents of required thickness. During the process of rolling, the width of the product is slightly more than the actual requirement. After that, the edges are cut to obtain proper width and fil...
Ramesh Food Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT366TriDel
1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of biscuits under the brand name 'Ramesh' on their own account and under the brand name of 'Cadbury' on job work basis on behalf of M/s. Hindustan Cocoa Products, Bombay. They cleared their own brand biscuits worth approximately Rs. 6.29 lakhs and thereafter, they cleared goods worth Rs. 1,20,937/- availing the benefit of Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-86. Simultaneously, they filed an application on 17-1-90 for availing Modvat facility in respect of Cadbury brand biscuits manufactured by them on job work basis.2. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of duty on goods bearing Ramesh brand. The Assistant Collector dropped the demand holding that an assessee can avail of full exemption on products falling under one heading and availed Modvat credit on full duty on goods falling under a different Chapter heading. The Department filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who held that it was not permissible for an assessee ...
Yashwant Co-operative Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT418TriDel
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the printing frames manufactured by the appellants herein out of flat bed screens in turn made out of nylon bolting cloth fall for classification under Heading 84.42 of the Central Excise Tariff and are covered by Notification 201/87 issued under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as claimed by the appellants, or the goods fall under Heading 59.09 and hence not covered by the Notification above mentioned, as held by the Revenue.2. On hearing Shri R.S. Sangia, learned DR, we find that this issue has been settled by the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 821-822/98-D, dated 9-10-1998 in the case of K.J. Vakharia & Co. and M/s. Suman Silk Mills P. Ltd. in which it has been held that the printing frames converted from flat bed screens are classifiable under Heading 84.42. Since the printing frames falling- under the above Heading are governed by Notification 201/87, we hold that the Notification is also applicable.3. In th...
Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT320TriDel
1. The issue of classification of 1C engines specially designed for use in diesel hydraulic locomotive shunters arises for determination in this appeal - according to the Revenue, classification would be under Tariff Item 29(1) of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff since the 1C engines are admittedly designed for use in loco-shunters which are transport vehicles since they transport goods, while, according to the assessees, the correct classification is Tariff Item 29(2) which covers "others".2. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits; hence we heard the learned DR and perused the records.3. Tariff Item 29(1) covers 1C engines which are designed for use as prime mover for transport vehicles and which have been given for that purpose some special shape, size and quality which would not be essential for their use for any other purpose. It is not disputed that the 1C engines manufactured by the appellants herein are used as prime movers for loco shunters. The ...
i.B.P. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT960TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by M/s. I.B.P. Co. Ltd. is about the availability of benefit of exemption in respect of site mixed slurry explosives under Notification No. 191/87, dated 4-8-1987.2. Shri R.P. Singh, learned Consultant submitted that the appellant company set up a plant as per agreement with M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (HZL) for mixing/preparation of such ingredients as needed to be done and for making arrangements for loading/transportation of the mixed/prepared and unmixed/unprepared ingredients; that they were specifically told that M/s. HZL had been exempted from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 191/87 and M/s. HZL had sent them a copy of L-6 licence for obtaining the explosive for industrial purposes without payment of duty. He further, submitted that in their classification list filed by them, they had clearly mentioned that HZL is exempted from Excise duty as per Notification No. 191 /87; that the present proceedings had arisen out of ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Chemical Process Equipments Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT390TriDel
1. The Revenue is in Appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bombay dated 24-2-1994 by which Collector (Appeals) had reversed the order of the Asstt. Collector disallowing recredit of an amount of Rs. 7,28,195.72 in the respondent's RG 23A Part II Account by them on 13-5-1991. Along with the Appeal, the Department had also filed a condonation of delay application for condoning a delay of six days in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal. The Collector has stated that since the matter was a complicated one which had to be referred to the Principal Collector, there was delay in obtaining directions from the Principal Collector in the matter and hence the delay. After considering the explanation given for the delay, we condone the same and allow the COD Application.2. As regards the merits of the case, Shri Sumit Das, Id. DR submits that the issue relates to the recrediting of certain amount suo motu by the respondents on 13-5-1991 despite the condition laid down in the A...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »