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.
Niraj Cement Structurals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT284TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Niraj Cement Structurals, the matter relates to the classification of the products which had been referred to by the appellants in the classification list as RCC Tiles. The appellants had classified their products under sub-heading 6807.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 59/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, while confirming the classification under sub-heading No. 6807.00 of the Tariff denied the benefit of Notification No. 59/90-C.E. He observed that the product in question was a floor covering in the form of tiles which was specifically excluded from the description under Serial No. 4 of the table annexed to Notification No. 59/90-C.E.2. Shri V.C. Chopra, Partner, submitted that the goods manufactured by them and which were in dispute were to be used for laying the cables and for that purpose they had been given re-enforcement by steel rods.It was his plea th...
Unisef Electronics (India) Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT514TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed with reference to the order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 8-8-1997.2. Learned Counsel stated that in this case, the appellants' request for condonation of delay in filing the declaration under Rule 57G has been rejected.3. The appellants were doing job work for branded goods for Bajaj etc.as well as manufacturing goods of their own brand name. They wanted to change over to Modvat scheme and therefore, filed an application on May 29, 1996 requesting for condonation of delay and informing that they are taking Modvat in anticipation of the orders but, assuring that they will utilise the same after receiving the required permission and they also submitted an indemnity bond. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner asked the Supdt. to enquire and verify; and the documents called for were duly submitted. The A.C., however, rejected their request on the ground that sufficient cause for filing late has no...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Panorama Plastics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT152TriDel
1. The dispute in this appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Vadodara is in respect of rigid P.U. foam. The excisability of this item has been decided by the earlier orders of the Tribunal, the most recent one being Collector of Central Excise v. Wimco Pen Company and M/s. Hindustan Traders (Final Order Nos. 42-43/98-C, dated 12-1-1998). The Bench noted that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Milton Plastics holding that the item is not excisable was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1995 (80) E.L.T. A212. Noting that the Milton Plastics order of the Tribunal has become final in view of the dismissal by the Supreme Court of the appeal by the Revenue against Milton Plastics order, the Bench upheld the order of the lower Appellate authority and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.2. Following the ratio of Final Order No. 42-43/98 which is directly applicable to the present case, we hold that the item is not excisable, confirm the impugne...
Jct Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT687TriDel
1. This reference application is filed by the assessee for referring the following questions on the ground that they arise out of the Tribunal's Order Nos. A/827-829/97-NB, dated 24-7-1997 [1998 (99) E.L.T. 393 (Tribunal) :- (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances in the case the Tribunal is correct in holding that Modvat credit is to be disallowed even if only a fraction of the inputs on which the credit is taken, is used in the manufacture of final product which is exempt from payment of duty under Exemption Notification. (b) Whether for the purpose of taking credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A read with 57C of Central Excise Rules, the relevant stage is when credit of duty paid on inputs is taken, i.e., when the inputs are brought into the factory, since at that stage, it cannot be said that the input will be used for manufacture of final products which are exempt or subject to nil rate of duty, whether credit taken can be denied.Further, reference application was amend...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Monarch Moulding (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT477TriDel
1. The respondents, herein, imported goods described as "Desmodur VT 66". At the time of importation, the goods were classified under Chapter Heading 3823.90 with the benefit of Notification No. 136/86 chargeable to duty @ 70% basic 45% auxiliary 15% C.V.D. On the basis of the CERA, it was felt that the item merited classification under Chapter Heading 3911.90 of the Customs Tariff chargeable to duty @ 100% basic 45% auxiliary 15% CVD. Hence show cause notice and demand notice for Rs. 29,256.30 was issued to the respondents/importers. The Assistant Collector of Customs held that since the item imported was an Isocynate compound, it is to be assessed individually on merits. He drew support from the Board's circular dated 14-1-1989. He, therefore, dropped the demand. Before the appellate authority, the department did not substantiate its claim for classification of the imported goods under Heading 3911.90 and hence the Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the groun...
Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. R.K. Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT689TriDel
1. This is an appeal from the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing refund of countervailing duty on melting scrap imported by the respondents herein and used captively in the manufacture of iron and steel products.2. The original authority did not allow the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment of the respondents inasmuch as it has been held by that authority that the duty paid on the melting scrap has been passed on to the buyer of the iron and steel products manufactured out of that melting scrap.3. The lower appellate authority in giving benefit of refund of countervailing duty to the importers/respondents has relied on Bombay High Courts' judgment in the case of Wyeth Laboratories v. Union of India -1992 (57) E.L.T. 68 (Bom.) and Kusum Engg. Works v. Union of India - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 21 (Bom.).4. The learned JDR, Shri A.M. Tilak for the Revenue submits that a recent judgment of Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of CC v. Indo Swiss Synthetic General...
Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Micro Abrasives (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC405Tri(Delhi)
1. The question involved in this matter is regarding the admis-sibility of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The goods are:- 2. The lower appellate authority has held that the aforesaid goods are entitled to the Modvat credit as capital goods under the aforesaid rule. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue.3. The Learned JDR, Shri A.M. Tilak submits that both the aforesaid articles do not have any function for producing and processing any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance. Hence, the Modvat credit should not be made available to the aforesaid two articles. For this, he relies on two judgments namely, :- 3. As against the aforesaid contentions, the learned Consultant Shri S.K. Gadhok submits that so far as wires and cables are concerned, it has been held by a series of judgments that this commodity would be entitled to Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q. As regards the Vibration Controllers, he submits that this is also essentia...
Aravali Forgings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC462
1. The dispute is in respect of classification of roughly shaped pieces of iron and steel. The appellants claimed classification of the products under question under sub-heading 7208. According to the department the item in question was classifiable under 7308.90 as articles of iron and steel.3. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the issue involved in this case has already been covered and considered by the Tribunal in the very party's case as per Order No. E/232 to 242/93-B, dated 24-8-1993 reported at 1994 (70) E.L.T. 693 (Tribunal). He also referred to the impugned order wherein the Collector (Appeals) has observed that the demand is subject to the decision of the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/282/89-B1 filed by the respondent. Shri J.S. Agarwal submitted that order in Appeal No. 282/89 was the subject matter of dispute before the Tribunal in the order referred to above and in fact both should have been linked together and that was the prayer of ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Scientific Diamonds Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT206TriDel
1. The short point involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the assessee was having 10 or more workers so as to attract the levy of Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 68.2. In the adjudication order, Collector held that the contractor and his assistant who were visiting the factory of the assessee for the process of cutting are not to be included in the workers as their work was not related to their manufacture. Shri S. Nunthuk, ld. JDR submitted that according to the definition of the 'factory' under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948, it is required that there should 10 or more workers working or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months. He further mentioned that as per Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, the term worker is defined as a person employed directly or by or through any agency (including contractors) with or without the knowledge of the principal employer whether for remuneration or not, in any manufacturing process. He submitted that ...
Collector of C.Ex. Vs. Apsara Art Material Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT216TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is as to whether an assessee can simultaneously avail benefit of full exemption in terms of Notification No. 176/86 which goods falling under one heading and pay duty and avail Modvat credit on goods falling under another heading.2. The respondents herein are a registered small scale unit manufacturing Nitro Cellulose lacquers falling under Heading 32.08 and (2) P.V.A. glue falling under Heading 35.06. They filed classification list effective from 1-4-1987 and 1-11-1987 in respect of Nitro Cellulose lacquers. When they crossed the clearance value of Rs. 15 lakhs, they started paying on the clearance of this product and took Modvat credit on duty paid thereon. In November, 1987, they commenced manufacture of PVA glue and claimed full exemption upto the value of Rs. 15 lakhs. Since the department was of the view that simultaneous availment of Modvat and exemption under Notification No. 175/86 even though in respect of the goods u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »