Delhi Court July 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 Central Excise Vs. Marvel Vinyls Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT284TriDel
1. One of the issues involved in this case is whether Modvat credit is admissible on GP 1 issued before 1-4-1994 but endorsed after 1-4-1994.2. This reference application is filed by the Revenue requesting to refer the following questions on the ground that they arise out of the Final Order No. A/34/98-NB, dated 8-1-1998. (i) The Modvat credit is not admissible on the strength of endorsed Gate passes which are invalid documents after 31-3-1994 in the light of Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 read with Rule 52A and 57G. (ii) As per Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 endorsed GP Is are valid documents for Modvat provided that the documents in question have been issued before 1-4-1994 and credit has been taken on or before 30-6-1994 and in the instant case the GP Is were issued prior to 31-3-1994, but endorsement made on or after 1-4-1994 which should not be considered as valid documents in view of proviso mentioned under Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N...
Spirotech Heat Exchangers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT654TriDel
1. The point involved in this appeal is whether the appellants were eligible to take Modvat credit in February, 1996 on the basis of duty paying documents issued before six months of the date of taking credit.2. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the ld. Counsel submits that the Rule 57G(2) was amended by Notification No. 28/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-6-1995 in which it was mentioned that the manufacturers can not take credit after six months of the date of documents specified under first proviso to this Sub-rule. He submits that the notification cannot be given retrospective effect as the duty paying documents was issued before 29-6-1995. When it was pointed out to him that the credit was taken in February, 1996 the notification was already in force and it refers to the date the credit is availed of, he fairly concedes the point.3. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue the ld. DR reiterates the department's arguments. It is apparent from proviso to Section (sic) 57G(2) that the manufacture...
United Diamonds Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT211TriDel
1. Short question involved herein is whether demand of duty for the period September, 1988 to August, 1989 against the show cause notice dated 15-6-1990 for declaring the goods in the classification list as watch crystals is barred by time when the authorities find that it is watch glass.1.1. Learned Advocate submits that watch crystal is known as watch glass. It is apparent from the Ministry of Finance Circular No.132/5/94-CX. 4 (Circular No. 1/91, dated 1-1-1991). That circular starts with the following paragraph :- "I am directed to say that doubts have been raised regarding correct classification of Watch Crystals (glasses) whether under sub-heading 7011.90 as 'clock or watch glass and similar glasses' or under sub-heading 9114.00 as 'other clock or watch parts'." He also points out the meaning of crystal from the Chambers Dictionary Delux Edition which among various meanings gives the meaning of crystal as superior glass. He also cites various meanings from the said dictionary fo...
Bajaj Carpet Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT235TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 2-9-1997 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-II.2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner, Central Excise held that supertax non-woven carpet is classifiable u/s.h. No. 5703.90 of the Tariff as other floor coverings and held that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 29/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants filed the C/List and claimed the classification of their product 'Supertax Nonwoven Carpet u/s.h. No. 5703.20 of the Tariff as 'floor coverings of jute' and claimed the benefit of Notification No.29/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995. Learned Counsel explained the process of manufacture of supertax non-woven carpet and submitted that supertax non-woven carpet consists of 350 gms. per sq.m. of jute, 280 gms. per sq.m. of polypropylene fibre and 370 gms. per sq.m. of adhesive & chalk powder.4. He submits th...
ivp Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC787Tri(Delhi)
2. The appellants herein filed a classification list No. 5/86-87 effective from 1-3-1986 for goods manufactured by them and claimed classification of one of their products, namely, alumina products under Tariff sub-heading 8485.90. The said classification list was duly approved by the authorities.2.1 Later on the Revenue had a rethinking and they addressed a letter to the appellant on 30-1-1987 for changing the classification list of the aforesaid product under Chapter 69 but the appellants did not agree to the said request. Hence a detailed show cause notice setting out the grounds for change in the classification of the aforesaid goods was issued to the appellants on 11-2-1987 which was received by them on 19-2-1987. The classification list was changed as proposed by the Revenue under Chapter 69 for the aforesaid product. The appellants herein did not succeed before the lower appellate authority. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.3. Learned Counsel, Shri Gopal Prasad has submitt...
Kapri International (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT937TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi confirming a demand of duty of Rs. 43,52,716.34 for the period 1-4-1984 to 31-5-1985 for clandestine clearance of bed sheets, bed spreads etc. from the appellants through official liquidator under Rule 9(2) and Section 11A of the Act. The Commissioner further confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 1,72,694.26 from the appellants through official liquidator for wrongful availment of benefit of Notification No. 77/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 for the period 1984-85. He also confiscated 132 bichhona sets, 17 packages containing 204 bichhona sets, 40 cartons containing bed sheets, pillow covers, top sheets etc. and 38 cartons containing bed sheets, pillow covers etc. He also gave an option to the appellants through official liquidator to redeem these confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.50 lac with the direction that this option may be exercised within 30 days of receipt of this order. He also im...
Fermentapharma Biotech Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. and C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT260TriDel
1. In the above case, a demand of duty of Rs. 3,36,18,021/- has been confirmed on the product Penicillin G Amidase (PGA for short) Biocatalyst manufactured by the applicants herein during the period from February, 1990 to March, 1996, as a result of revision of classification from CET sub-heading 3002.00 as "cultures of Micro organism" (attracting nil rate of duty) to CET sub-heading 3507.00 (attracting 15% rate of duty) as "Enzymes".2. The classification claimed by the applicant's has been changed on the basis inter alia of the opinion dated 16-3-1995 and 4-12-1996 of the Chief Chemist, Central Revenues Control Laboratory, Technical Material in the form of an Article written by S/Shri J.G. Shewale and H. Shivraman "Penicillin acylases" Enzymes production and its application in the manufacture of Six APA and the fact that another assessee viz. Max India Ltd. was manufacturing the same item and classifying it under CET sub-heading 3507 and the fact that other companies specially Ranbax...
C.D. Engg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT194TriDel
1. The Appeal has been filed by the Appellants against the Order-in-Appeal dated 1-9-1997 disallowing the Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.2. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the Id. Counsel submits that the appellants were manufacturing forgings and for that purposes they purchased ingots which have been declared by them in their declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. The ingots were classifiable under Heading 72.06 of the Central Excise Tariff. In the present matter M/s. TISCO has supplied for defective and damaged ingots and the description of the goods mentioned in the invoice was DD Ingots. Modvat credit has been denied to them on the ground that the goods received were scrap classifiable under Heading 72.04 of the Tariff. The other ground on which Modvat credit was denied that the address of the assessee's second unit was mentioned whereas the credit was taken by Assessee in the present unit. He submits that the credit cannot be ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Asha Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC223
1. Matter called. None for the respondents. They have, however, desired the case to be decided on merits. Hence we have heard the learned SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as given in the impugned order are as follows :- "The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Creamy Snuff, falling under sub-heading 2404.90 (subsequently changed of S.H. 2404.60) of the Schedule to CETA, 1985, out of duty paid snuff in powder form purchased from the market under regular gate passes. As such, they availed the benefit of proforma credit under Rule 56A on the duty paid snuff. The Assistant Collector vide his impugned order has disallowed the credit amounting to Rs. 5,255.75, availed by the appellants, in respect of Creamy Snuff cleared during the period 1-3-1989 to 16-5-1989, on the ground that in the Notification No. 84/87, dated 1-3-1987 providing for the availing of proforma credit, the S.H. number of Creamy snuff remained as 2404.90, whereas the classification of...
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT577TriDel
1. M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. had come in appeal against the order of rejection of their refund claim of the duty paid second time on the clearance of sugar after reprocessing.2. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the ld. Counsel submits that the appellants had applied for bringing the duty paid sugar for the purpose of reprocessing from their godown in Lucknow under Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules. The permission was granted by the Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow under Rule 173H. The goods were brought into the factory on 11-4-1995, 13-4-1995 and 14-4-1995. The goods were removed from the factory on 27th July, 1995, 2-8-1995 and 3-8-1995. On the verbal instructions of the Inspector the duty was paid again by the Appellants at the time of removing the goods after reprocessing. After making the payment on 27th July at the time of removal of the first consignment a letter was addressed to the Inspector-in-charge with a copy to the Superintendent and Assistant Collector reque...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »