Delhi Court June 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not 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. Radiant Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT523TriDel
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi holding that heating elements in question are correctly classifiable under Tariff Heading 85.48 and not under Heading 85.16 as had been decided by the Asstt.Commissioner. It contends that parts of electric machinery and equipment covered by Tariff Heading 85.16 should also be assessed under the same heading in view of Section Note 2(2) and not under the residuary Item 85.48.3. We have perused the records of the case and have considered the points raised by the appellant. We find that Tariff Item 85.16 is specific to electric machinery and equipment which perform the function of heating. The heating elements in question are parts of such machinery and equipment. The Revenue are, therefore, right in their contention that Section Note 2(2) is applicable with regard to classification of the heating elements and their classification should be under Heading 85.16. Accordingly, the...
Hajoori and Sons Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC500
2. the duty on the above product was enhanced from Rs. 0.53 Ps per bottle to Rs. 0.75 Ps. per bottle by notification No. 160/90 dt. 15.12.90; 3. they came to know about the above said notification through local Range staff and the local newspapers on 18.12.90; 4. as per the direction of the Range staff they paid differential duty of Rs. 10,212.05 on the goods cleared from 15.12.90 to 18.12.90 at the old rate under protest; The appellants herein did not succeed before the lower appellate authority hence this appeal before us.2. The appellants in their written submissions have submitted that burden of proving that Official Gazette was put for sale on particular date is on the Revenue and it is not on the appellants as held by the lower appellate authority. Nevertheless the appellants submitted that they wrote a letter to the Director of Publication and the Commissioner TRU New Delhi with a request to inform them the date of publication of notification No. 160/90 dated 15.12.90 in the Of...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Amrit Petro Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT656TriDel
1. In this case a demand of Rs. 18,784.51 was confirmed against the respondents herein on their product "oil saver of engine" as a result of classification of the product under Chapter 27. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the demand confirmed by the Assistant Collector.Hence this appeal by the Revenue.2. We find that the classification dispute has been decided by the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/5393/91-C vide Tribunal's Final Order No.394/98-A, dated 17-6-1998 [1998 (103) E.L.T. 633 (Tribunal)] in which the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the respondents that the product falls for classification under CET Sub-heading which is specific for anti-knock preparation and has not agreed with the contention of the Department that the product falls for classification under Chapter 27 (Sub-heading 27.10). Since the respondents claim for classification has been upheld by the Tribunal's Final Order cited above, the demand for differential duty which was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) ...
Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. (P) Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT798TriDel
1. These are three stay applications filed by the present applicants seeking waiver of : (i) pre-deposit of personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs against M/s. Singhla Sales Corporation (P) Ltd. and order of confiscation of plastic scrap valued at Rs. 42,46,4287- and a redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakhs in lieu of confiscation order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar by impugned Order-in-Original No. 68/97, dated 9-12-1997; (ii) Rs. 2 lakhs as penalty on M/s. Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. under impugned order No. 57/97, dated 13-10-1977 passed by CC, Amritsar and a further; (iii) Rs. 2 lakhs against M/s. Singhla Sales Corporation (P) Ltd. as penalty under same impugned order No. 57/97.2. Shri G.L. Rawal, ld. Counsel, who appeared for all the three applicants submitted that M/s. Singhla Sales Corporation (P) Ltd. had imported a certain quantity of Acrylic Sheets/off-cuts and had also sold certain quantities to M/s. Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (M/s. Polyglass) on high s...
Gurind Sales Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT992TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Gurind Sales, the matter relates to the classification of the photo frames. The appellants had classified the photo frames under sub-heading No. 9003.19 of the Central Excise Tariff under their classification list effective from 1-2-1989. Under demand-cum-show cause notice dated 4-7-1989 it was alleged that the said goods were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 7015.00 of the said Tariff. The Central Excise duty amounting to Rs 54,577.74 was demanded for the period from February, 1989 to May, 1989. The classification under sub-heading No. 7015.00 of the central excise tariff was confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise under his Order-in-Original dated 22-1-1990. Before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), alternative classification under Heading No. 83.06 was sought by the appellants. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) examined the sample of the disputed goods and referred to the Section/Chapter Notes under the Tari...
Shah Engineering Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC225
1. The issues for determination in the above appeal which arises out of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay are as under :- (i) Classification of the product described as "Kwik Chipper and Slicer" -according to the assessees the product falls for classification under CET subheading 8212.11 and the benefit of Notification No. 107/88 read with Notification No. 67/90 is available to this product, while according to the impugned, order, the item is classifiable under CET sub-heading 8210.00 and benefit of Notification is not available. (ii) Classification of "Tape Dispenser" - according to the assessees, this is classifiable under sub-heading 3923.90 of the Schedule to the CET A, 1985 and the benefit of Notification No. 53/88 (at Sl. No. 39) is available, while the impugned order holds that the product falls for classification under CET sub-heading 3926 and the applicability of the Notification has not been discussed in the impugned order.2. We have heard...
inderjit Singh Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)(79)LC365Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant, a trader in ball bearings, in the course of search and seizure effected by Customs Officers on 3.7.1991 in his premises, was found to be in possession of 46,623 pcs. of bearings of foreign origin for which he was unable to produce any bills or duty paying documents on that day. In his statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, he stated that these bearings were purchased from various traders and he produced the purchased bills subsequently. Enquiries were made with the persons who allegedly supplied these goods. Certain varieties of bearings could be imported at the relevant time only by actual users. That being so, appellant could not have purchased these ball bearings of foreign origin from persons who imported them in their professed capacity as actual users. The documents relied upon by the appellant were examined and compared. The department came to the tentative conclusion that all the bearings were imported without payment of duty and in violation ...
Mahendra Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC109
1. This batch of 13 Stay petitions was heard together as the issue was the same and is being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts leading to the Appeals and the Stay Petitions thereon are that the Appellants are Rolling Mills. In terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, rules for determination of the final annual capacity of the Rolling Mills for purpose of levy and collection of duty have been formulated. In the present case, the ld. Commissioner fixed the annual capacity of the Rolling Mills on the strength of the investigation report of the Assistant Commissioner of the jurisdiction as also on the basis of the technical opinion obtained from certain experts. The ld. Commissioner did not disclose the content of the report filed by the Assistant Commissioner or the Expert opinion given by the Technical Expert and decided the issue against the Appellants.3. Shri Balbir Singh, the ld. Advocate, submits that while determining the annual capacity, the ld. Commissione...
Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC370Tri(Delhi)
1. Although there is a request for adjournment from the appellant's Counsel Shri A.S. Sunderajan on account of his pre-occupation, we are unable to acceed to the request because a number of adjournments have already been given in this case and the matter is as old as 1991.Accordingly, we have heard the ld. JDR Shri S.N. Ojha for the Revenue.We have also gone through the impugned order as well as the appeal memo filed by the appellants herein.2. The appellant's herein took diesel gear cutters for tin-plating outside the country and then reimported the same. The appellants produced a certificate from DGTD for release of the goods in terms of Notification No. 204/76 but the claim of the appellant, under the said notification was not accepted by the lower original authority on the ground that the said notifications speaks of 'repairs' being carried outside. But present case is not one of repairs but it is one of technological upgradation inasumch as the imported diesel gear cutters had be...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Duraflex Coir Industries Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT203TriDel
1. The respondents herein are manufacturers of rubberised coir mattresses, rubberised coir pillows, rubberised cushions. They manufacture compounded rubber for captive consumption in the manufacture of the above mentioned final products. The department was of the view that the respondents has manufactured certain quantity of compounded rubber during the period from 1-1-1987 to 31-5-1991 without taking out a licence for the item, without maintaining statutory accounts and without filing classification list and without payment of duty; hence a notice was issued to them proposing recovery of duty on the compounded rubber manufactured and captively consumed during the period mentioned herein above. The matter was adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise who accepted the respondents' contention that the compounded rubber was not a marketable commodity due to its very short shelf life and he noted that the department has not brought on record any evidence to rebut this contention of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »