Delhi Court June 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.
Commissioner of C Ex. Vs. United Textiles Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT570TriDel
1. After hearing the JDR the appeal was admitted for further hearing.The respondents requested for an adournment but the facts being clear, the main appeal was taken up for disposal.2. The limited issue in this appeal is whether electric motors which are integral part of the textile machinery are admissible under Rule 57Q or not. The Assistant Collector had denied the benefit on the observation that the assessee had not produced any evidence to prove that the motors were inbuilt parts. The Collector in his impugned order refers to the fact that the claim that the motors were inbuilt components of the textile machinery was verified by the Sector officer.In view of this direct observation I find no merit in the appeal in which the claim is made that electric motors did not have any bearing on the manufacture of final products. Without the motive power furnished by motors, the machine would not operate. In such cases there is no need to analyse and discuss any precedent judgment. The fac...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Peripheral India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC212
1. Both these appeals have been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi against the combined order-in-appeal bearing No. 304 and 305-CE/DLH/91 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi holding the respondents herein to be eligible for the benefit of exemption available under Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986. The facts of the case in respect of the two appeals are as follows.2. Respondent, M/s. Peripheral India, New Delhi was availing exemption under Notification 175/86 in respect of their factory registered with the Director of Industries, New Delhi. In February, 1989, they shifted the factory to a new location and applied for change of registration to that authority. Pending the receipt of the new registration certificate showing the changed address, respondent continued to manufacture excisable goods and clear them from the new premises under the aforesaid notification. This was objected to by the department on the ground that as far as the new pr...
Bhopal Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT679TriDel
1. Shri G. Shiv Das, Learned Advocate submitted that Modvat Credit amounting to Rs. 19,37,756/- has been disallowed to the appellants by the Commissioner under the impugned order on the ground that the invoices on the basis of which Modvat Credit was availed of did not contain any information prescribed under Rule 57GG of Central Excise Rules, namely, name and address of manufacturer/supplier, invoice number of manufacturer, quantity, value, rate and amount. The learned Advocate further submitted that the goods in question were imported by the supplier and all the missing particulars were furnished by them subsequently; that the Commissioner observed that providing missing details at a later date would not save the credit already taken on the strength of documents without the necessary details. He further mentioned that subsequently while considering their application filed under Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules for the said amount involved in the present appeal, Assistant Commissione...
Cyma Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT504TriDel
1. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is a manufacturer of IC Engines in the manufacture of which certain components are purchased from the manufacturers thereof, some without payment of duty following Chapter X procedure and some on payment of duty. In respect of the latter category of the purchases of component parts, appellant, as buyer of such inputs, had filed refund claim before the Asstt. Commissioner. The claim was rejected by that authority on the ground that the claim had been filed not by the manufacturer of such component parts but by the present appellant who is only a purchaser of such components and who manufactures IC Engines there from. The order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) but challenge by the appellant leading to the present appeal.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant made available a copy of Tribunal's Final Order No. E/16/97-B, dated 16-12-1997 in Appeal No.4630/89-B in the case of Ferrous Engineering v. C.C.E., Bombay 1998 (100)...
Khadi Mandir Uni-finishing Plant Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT659TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Khadi Mandir Unifinishiig Plant, Bikaner the matter relates to the eligibility of the appellants to the beriefit of exemption provided under sub-heading No. 5107.23 of the Central Excise Tariff. Both the Dy. Collector of Central Excise and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that the appellants were not an organisation approved by the Govt. for the purpose of development of handlooms in terms of sub-heading No. 5107.23 of the Central Excise Tariff. The woollen fabrics which had beenprocessed with the aid of power by the appellants were classified under sub-heading No. 5107.99 of the Tariff.2. We have heard Shri R. Sawaminathan, ld. Consultant for the appellants. He referred to the certificate from the Khadi and Village Industries Commission at page 9 of the paper book and submitted that this certificate has to be taken as an approval by the Govt. in favour of the appellants for the purpose of development of handlooms. It was his submissio...
Kailash Paints and Chemicals Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC395
1. The appeal is directed against the order-in-original, dated 11-12-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 37,190.88 and imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant. The demand of duty was in respect of zinc ingots manufactured by the appellant from galvanised zinc ash by denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No.104/88, dated 1-3-1988 which was applicable to such zinc ingots made from zinc materials falling under Chapter 79 of the Central Excise Tariff. The impugned order was passed on the basis that on and from 1-3-1988 zinc ash and such items fell outside the purview of Chapter 79 of the Central Excise Tariff and came to be reclassified under Chapter 26 ibid.2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri Ajay Jain, learned Counsel submitted that the change of tariff classification for items like zinc ash from Chapter 79 to Chapter 26 proposed in the Finance Bill of 1988 became effective only after passing o...
Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT652TriDel
1. These two appeals are from the same assessees involving the same point and are, therefore, taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.2. Shri C.B. Tarika, authorised nominee of the assessee argued the case and Shri A.M. Tilak, ld. DR represented the department.3. In both the appeals first issue for consideration is whether caustic soda flakes used for descaling of brass tubes, are admissible input under Rule 52A or not. Before the Assistant Commissioner, the judgment of the Tribunal was cited wherein CEGAT had permitted caustic soda used as an input. The Assistant Commissioner observed that the case had no-precedence for the facts before him. The appellants before me placed reliance on Tribunal's judgment in the case of C.C.E. v. J.K.Synthetics Ltd. reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 507 (Tribunal) where the single Member permitted descaling compound used for air conditioning system as admissible inputs. The inputs in the present case, being on similar lines, do qua...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jct Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT533TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the order-in-original dated 28-9-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, is under challenge. The respondents, M/s, JCT Mills Ltd., Phagwara, were engaged in the manufacture of, among other products, three varieties of Chaddars - variety No. 555, variety No. 5555 and variety No. Jagat Guru. Dutiability of all these three varieties of chaddars was for consideration before the adjudicating authority. The Revenue had filed the present appeal only with regard to the variety 'Jagat Guru'. The Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, had held that the goods in question were not 'made up' textile articles within the meaning of 'made up' under Section Note 5 of Section XI of the Central Excise Tariff. He had also expressed doubt whether the assessee had suppressed any facts to justify the application of the extended period of limitation. The Revenue had pleaded that with regard to the variety 'Jagat Guru' no price list was filed and i...
indfos Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(78)LC310Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Indfos Industries Ltd., the matter relates to the claim for refund filed by the appellants on 28.2.1995 for the period 17.3.1986 to 7.8.1989. The ground for claiming the refund was that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of instruments for Pressure/Temperature Controls for Industrial Application and had imported Bellows, a component part for such instrument. They sought classification of the Bellows under sub-heading 9032.90 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Customs Department classified the said Bellow under sub-heading No. 8307.10. The importers paid the customs duty as assessed by the Department and got the goods cleared out of customs charge. It is seen that w.e.f. 10.9.1991, the Customs Department agreed with the importers that the goods were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 9032.90 and were otherwise eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 69/86-Cus. The appellants filed refund claim for the period of six months from the ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Safari Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT54TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) classifying Doctors' cases manufactured by the assessees/respondents herein under T.I. 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff - the Revenue seeks classification of this item under T.I. 48A which reads as under : 2. Shri A.K. Masdan, learned DR submits that the item in question is nothing but a sort or type of brief case. There is no difference in appearance between any brief-case and the item in dispute, although inside the brief-case, there may be special compartments for keeping equipment such as Blood Pressure equipments, syringes etc. He submits that these being travel goods, that could be carried from place to place, they are covered by Tariff Item 48A which is a specific entry not by Tariff Item 68 which is a residuary entry, which can be applied only if no other item covers a product. He also submits that the fittings in the doctor's case are detachable and once they are remo...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »