Delhi Court March 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.
Pen Stock Fabrication Division Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT133TriDel
1. The question involved in the present case is refund of penalty of Rs. 34,750/- imposed on the appellant on account of several offence cases booked against the appellant. As a result of adjudication of the case, the appellant herein were asked to pay Central Excise duty of the following amounts :- 2. Rs. 11,35,850.54 apart from imposition of penalties totalling the aforesaid amount.2. Later on, the refund of the duty was given in view of an adhoc exemption granted by the Central Government issued under Section 5A(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Refund of penalty amount aforesaid was not granted by the Assistant Collector.3. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who did not accept the plea of the appellant for the refund of penalty on the following grounds :- "It is thus clear that all the Order-in-Original are still in force since no appeals have been filed against them so the orders are still existing. The effect of adhoc exemption order w...
Neera Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ECC31
(i) whether the appellants' declaration as MS Plates and GP Sheets showing Tariff Heading 7909 will cover the actual inputs obtained by the appellant under Tariff Headings 7208.11 and 7210.19 with description plates and GP sheets. (ii) whether the goods in two invoices correlated with the goods purchased by the appellant from the manufacturer which shows payment of duty.3. As regards the first issue, the lower authorities have taken the view that the inputs actually obtained by the appellant fall under different Tariff Headings then what has been declared by him in the declaration under Rule 57G. We have to read the declaration as a whole description as well as the Tariff Heading and sub-heading. The description has been given as MS Plates and GP Sheets. There is no dispute about it. This description is wide enough to cover MS Plates and GP Sheets of all sizes under all sub-headings. Headings and sub-heading have been given merely for the purpose of broadly qualifying the description,...
Rewa Faun Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC463
Appeal No. E/4207/92-A - Rewa Fan Industries (Factory)Appeal No. E/4217/92-A - Shri R.K. Jaipuria [General Manager in RMPL]Appeal No. E/4218/92-A - Shri S.K. Singh [Commercial Manager of appellant]Appeal No. E/4218/92-A - Shri M.K. Jaipuria [Managing Director of Ravi 1. Rewa Fan Industries is the name of the factory belonging to M/s.Ravi Aircools Ltd. 2. Subject matter of the dispute are fans named Ravi Fans manufactured in the Rewa Fans factory. Appellant, the owner of the factory, was from time to time filing price lists in Part I and II, the latter relating to sales to be made to M/s. P.D. Vyas & Co. (for short, PDV), the sole distributor for Madhya Pradesh and stationed at Indore and the former relating to a few dealers. During the period from January, 1986 to August, 1987,95% of production was sold to PDV and the rest to a few dealers. After August, 1987, according to the records, 95% of the production was being sold to M/s. Shree Bajrang Enterprises who sold the same to RMPL ...
Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Raj Kamal Trading Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT97TriDel
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, M/s. Raj Kamal Trading Corporation in spite of service of notice as per acknowledgment on records. Therefore, the appeal is being taken for final disposal in the absence of the respondents.2. Heard Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, who appeared for the appellants. The respondents, M/s. Raj Kamal Trading Corporation is engaged in the manufacture of lamp & light fittings falling under Heading No. 9405.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The respondents filed classification list classifying their product under Chapter Heading No. 9405.00 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 96/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. The Notification No. 96/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 provides a concessional rate of duty to the goods falling under Chapter Heading No. 9405.00 and the benefit of Notification is not available to the goods made of glass. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents proposing to treat the said products as those made of ...
Asepack (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC141Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal from the manufacturer assessee against the impugned order which sustains a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in lieu of the confiscation of the goods and personal penalty of Rs. 2,500/-.3. The appellant herein is a manufacturer of plastic films and plastic film pouches laminated or otherwise. On 8th October, 1994, the Central Excise officers visited the factory of the appellant and detected a routine preventive checking. During the course of checking, an excess stock of finished goods i.e. plastic film pouches numbering 1,19,200 was detected. The excess stock pertained to various variety of printed pouches. The details of such stock was set out in annexure A to the panchnama dated 8-10-1994.3.1 On going through the annexure A to the panchnama available at pages 36 to 40 of the appeal papers, it is observed that loose finished products i.e. plastic film pouches to the tune of 1,28,250 in number were detected by the Central Excise officers. The original authority has held that th...
Kiran Combers and Spinners Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT40TriDel
"Synthetic waste is an Appx. 2 item for which no valid ITC licence has been produced. Though the value declared in the invoice could be accepted as the correct value for Synthetic waste, the rate of duty applicable for Synthetic Waste is 150% + 30% + Rs. 30/- per Kg. + Rs. 11.25 per Kg. Thus the duty that would have been evaded is more than Rs. 9,52,785.50 as shown in the show cause notice. In the circumstances, the goods are liable for confiscation under Section lll(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Imports & Exports (Central) Act, 1947 and the importers are liable for penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. I, therefore, order absolute confiscation of the offending goods under Section lll(d) & 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Imports & Exports (Central) Act, 1947. As no B/E has been filed and no person has come forward to clear the goods, I also order that goods be disposed of after keeping representat...
Kinetic Technology India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT36TriDel
1. Both the sides submit that three obvious typing mistakes had crept in the Tribunal's Final Order No. C/2224- 25/97-BII, dated 29-9-1997 in Appeal Nos. C/4064/91-B2 and C/762-BII.2. We find that these are obvious typing mistakes and need rectification. They are specified as under :- (1) On page 2 of the order, for the sentence "the classification under sub-heading No. 7504.39 of the", following sentence is substituted "the classification under sub-heading No. 7304.39 of the". (2) On page 3 of the order, for the sentence "amended the declared classification to Heading No. 7380.39 and in the", the following sentence is substituted "amended the declared classification to Heading No. 7304.39 and in the". (3) On page 4, for the sentence "their classification under sub-heading No. 7507.12 was" the following sentence is substituted "their classification under sub-heading 7507.12 was not".3. These rectifications will not affect the conclusions drawn and the order recorded.4. The Tribunal's ...
iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT220TriDel
1. The appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 91/Pat/89, dated 12-6-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta upholding the Order-in-Original dated 3-11-1988 passed by Superintendent of Central Excise. Tisco Range holding the appellant herein M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur to be not eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification 281/86, dated 24-4-1986 in respect of parts of Rolling Stock .manufactured in their factory ("Growth Shop") at Adityapur brought by them to their main Steel Works at Jamshedpur for being used for repair and maintenance of transport equipment used for moving their materials and products within the factory. The claim was disallowed by the Superintendent and his order having been upheld by Collector (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed.2. Shri Ravinder Narain, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that locomotives used in the appellant's factory to move raw materials and semi-finished goods from one ...
Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT138TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. ('RCI for short), being aggrieved with the common order-in-appeal dated 24-8-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. The matter relates to the eligibility of the product Robinson's Nutran Nutritional Food Supplement ('NUTRAN' for short), to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 17/70-C.E., dated 1-3-1970.The Assistant Collector of Central Excise had by his order dated 5-11-1986 held that the nutran was a food product prepared with the basis of flour and was classifiable under Item No. 1B of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, and was covered by serial No. 14 of the Schedule to the Notification No. 17/70-C.E. In another appeal the classification of the product of Fodder Husk was determined by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise under his Order-in-Original dated 2-2-1987 as under sub-heading No. 2301.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The classification of nutran was settled un...
Kay Foam Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT109TriDel
1. The appellants in this case were manufacturing polyurethane foam blocks. During such manufacture scrap termed as side skin, top skin, bottom skin, shredding, patti, etc. arose. These were sought to be classified under Heading 3915 read with Notification No. 54/88. The assessees also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 on the ground of their being a small scale industry. Later a show cause notice was issued alleging that such sides skin, etc., were not classifiable as waste, parings and scrap under 39.15, but as articles under Heading 3925. If was further alleged that the benefit of Notification 175/86 was not available for PU foam articles. Before the Assistant Collector the assessees cited the Tribunal's judgment in CCE v. Durga Foam Industries reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 723 in which it was held that top skin, bottom skin, side skin, shredding of PU foam cut pieces were classifiable under 3915. Following the ratio of the judgment, the Assistant Collector set aside the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »