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.
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Varun Radiators (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT348TriDel
1. This appeal of the Revenue is against the direction contained in the impugned order mat Radiator core and radiator assemblies meant for the machines falling under Headings 84.25 to 84.30 are correctly classifiable under Heading 84.31 and those meant for motor vehicles falling under Headings 87.01 to 87.05 are classifiable under Heading 87.08. The Revenue holds that correct classification of all radiators and radiator core would be 8708.00. Learned JDR submitted that radiators are specifically mentioned in the H.S.N. at page 1432 under Heading 8708.91 even though Central Excise Tariff does not specifically mention radiators. Shri Nunthuk also refers to Section Note 3 to Section XVII and Note IK of Section XVI.3. We have perused the records of the case and have considered the submissions of the Revenue. We find that Note 2(e) of Section XVII specifically states that parts and accessories in the Section do not apply to all machines and apparatus of Heading Nos. 84.01 to 84.79 and part...
Standard Surfactants Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT675TriDel
1. These are two appeals against the imposition of penalty on the Company and the Managing Director for fake credits in RG 23A Part II and PLA.2. When the cases were called, none was present on behalf of either appellants. However, we have taken up the matter for consideration on the basis of pleadings made in the appeal petitions.3. Shri Sanjeev Srivastva, learned DR submitted that the appellants' company had taken fake Modvat credits in their RG 23A Part II and credit entry in PLA without depositing any money in the bank over a period of six months from Jan., 1993 to July, 1993; the total amount involved is about Rs. 30 lakhs and therefore, imposition of penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on the Company is not on the higher side. In this regard, he relied upon the decision in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. v.CCE - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 77, in which case on taking wrong credit of Rs. 1.17 crores, the Tribunal found that the penalty of Rs. 1 crore is justified. Regarding the plea of not persona...
Gupta Pigment and Chemical P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT674TriDel
1. In the impugned order dated 5-5-1997, the Commissioner has inter alia given a finding that the appellants have taken deemed credit of approximately Rs. 10 lakhs on the basis of the documents issued by non-existing persons. The applicants submit that in order to support their contention that the traders from whom they purchased the inputs were in existance, they had produced before the adjudicatcing authority documents such as telephone bills and Sales Tax Registration certificates which were however, not accepted by the Commissioner on the ground that they were given at the stage of reply to the show cause notice and the proceedings could not be reopened at that stage. By this application, the applicants seek to bring on record Form 31 of Sales Tax in respect of the traders from whom they received the inputs. They submit that they could not produce these documents earlier because they were to be obtained from various sources and several of the traders were located outside the state...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Agarwal Cables
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC824Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant entered into a contract for supply of cables to U.P.Electricity Board on payment of agreed price plus Central Excise duty and Special Excise duty subject to maximum of 20%. This limit was agreed upon in view of the fact that the appellant was a small scale industry entitled to the exemption Notification 175/86 under which effective rate of duty would be 20% in all, up to clearance of the value of Rs. 75 lakhs. Full duty would be payable for clearances beyond the value of Rs. 75 lakhs. Appellant supplied the goods to the Board and paid the effective rate of duty for the clearances up to the value of Rs. 75 lakhs. In respect of clearances beyond this value appellant determined the assessable value after deducting 30% as duty from the total price received from the Board, which, however, took into consideration only 20% as effective duty. The department objected to this determination of the assessable value, determined the assessable value after deducting duty only at the rat...
Ram Kirpal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT671TriDel
1. The application for restoration of the appeal has been filed on the ground that the case was adjourned to 28-5-1998 but listed on 24-4-1998 and dismissed for default in appearance.2. We have heard learned DR. He fairly leaves the matter of restoration of application for decision by the Bench, we have perused the Court diary and are satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellants' Counsel. We, therefore, recall the order of dismissal and restore the appeal to its original number.3. The learned Counsel states that a reference application on the issue as to whether poppy seeds can be termed as "Diabetic Food" has been referred by the Tribunal to the Gujarat High Court where the matter was taken up but adjourned to the first week of August, 1998 and they request that the appeal may be fixed for hearing keeping this in view on any date after High Court takes up the matter in August.4. The learned SDR explains the urgency of the hearing of this matter.Keeping the request of both...
Cce Vs. Pyrene Rai Metal Treatment Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC526
1. Short question involved in this appeal is the question of classification of the two products described as follows:-- (i) Ardrox PC 7905B/7906B -- sample is an acidic aqueous solution of inorganic chemical "Sodium Chlorite"; (ii) Ardrox PC 7905A/7906A -- sample is an aqueous solution of inorganic chemicals like caustic soda and inorganic phosphates. It can find use as a degreasing agent.2. Before we deal with the arguments of both the sides, we would also like to reproduce the findings of the lower appellate authority which has held the classification of the two products under Tariff Heading No. 3823.90 in favour of the respondents herein:-- 4. I have considered the submissions. Here, there are two products, viz., Ardrox PC 7905 and PC 7906. PC 7905A and 7906A which are described as alkaline additive and 7905B which are described as oxidiser additive. From the literature furnished by the appellants, it is seen that PC 7905 and PC 7906 are for alkaline oxide chemical treatment of cop...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Anand Transformers (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT678TriDel
1. The present case involves admissibility of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs on gate passes issued by a manufacturer prior to 1-4-1994 but the credit was taken by the respondents herein after receipt of the intermediate processed goods through job worker, supplied directly to the job worker by the manufacturer on the advice of the respondents as per the procedure prescribed under a notification issued under Rule 57]. A question has arisen whether in such cases the Modvat credit taken by the respondents after 30-6-1994 as prescribed in Notification 16/94-C.E. would be still applicable in the facts and circumstances as mentioned above.2. The respondents herein have succeeded before the lower appellate authority whose findings are given in paras 9 & 10 of the impugned order. These two paras are reproduced below :- 9. I find that the intermediate processed goods were received in full by the appellants from the job worker under subsidiary challans as per procedure prescribed unde...
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC583Tri(Delhi)
1. This case involves denial of Modvat credit on the sole ground that the manufacturers' invoice covering the goods did not have pre-printed serial numbers as required under Rule 52A(6) of the CER, 1944. In addition, for taking wrong credit, a penalty was also imposed on the user manufacturer. The Assistant Commissioner in his order held that the conditions of Rule 52A(6) could not be over-looked even if the manufacturer had some difficulty in preparing a pre-printed invoice.The Commissioner (Appeals), in his order, referred to the common law principle of 'Caveat Emptor' and held that the buyer was expected to ensure that the duty paying document, passed the tests stipulated in the relevant rule. He, however, set aside the penalty imposed upon the appellants.2. The case for the appellant was argued by Shri Sanjay Khatri. Shri D.K. Nayyar, ld. DR represented the Revenue.3. Shri Khatri's reliance on the CBEC Circular No. 34/34/94-CX, dated 20-6-1994 in misplaced since Sub-rule (6) was i...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ashton Transmission Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT482TriDel
1. Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows as set out in the order-in-original :- 2. After finalisation of Provisional Assessment in the light of Asstt. Collector memorandum C. No. 13/VC/Final/94, dated 13-7-1994 read with corrigendum under C. No. V(17)VC/Ashton/607/87/3896, dated 14-9-1994 the differential duty worked out Rs. 1,13,573.60 which was debited by the party vide PLA Entry No. 2, dated 6-4-1995. 3. The party themselves took the credit of Rs. 1,20,443.52 paid previously in their RG 23A Pt. II vide Entry No. 3, dated 26-12-1995 and was directed by Range Supdt. to reverse the said credit and amount of Rs. 1,20,443.52 got debited (under protest) vide RG 23 Pt. II Entry No. 129, dated 25-3-1996 for which the said refund claim filed by the party.2. Original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground of time as also on some complicated reason that the Modvat credit initially debited was against Chapter 35 and not against Chapter 40.3. Lower appellate authority ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Larsen and Toubro Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT567TriDel
1. Respondent imported specially made steel tubes for use as parts of heat exchangers and submitted bill of entry dated 10-10-1994 suggesting classification under Chapter sub-heading 8419.90 and claiming benefit of Notification 62/94. The Assistant Collector held that the steel tubes imported remained steel tubes though they are to be used in heat exchangers and therefore, fell under Chapter Heading 73.04 as articles of steels and Notification 62/94 would not apply. The Collector (Appeals), reversed his decision and held in favour of the respondent.This order is now challenged by the department.2. Chapter 73 deals with articles of iron and steel. Chapter Heading 73.04 deals with tubes, pipes and hollow profiles, seamless, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel. Chapter 84 relates to "nuclear reactors, boiler, machinery and mechanical appliances; parts thereof".Chapter Heading 84.19 takes in "machinery, plant or laboratory equipment, whether or not electrically heated, for the treatme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »