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.
C.P. Foundry Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT634TriDel
1. These are four appeals filed by the appellants M/s. C.P. Foundry Works, Nagpur involving a common issue and therefore they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, ld. Advocate for the appellants and department was duly represented by Shri D.S. Negi, ld. SDR.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of three products, namely, cast iron metric weights, Filler weights and Rear and front wheel weights among other goods. The appellants have claimed classification under Heading, 7325/10 read with Notification No.202/88. The department has classified the cast iron metric weights under Heading 84.23, Filler weights under Heading 84.31 and Rear and Front wheel weights under heading 87.08. Other remaining items were classified under Chapter 84. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao submitted that apart from the dispute with reference to the classification of the items above, the appellants are entitled to the benefit in terms of Notification No....
Satya NaraIn Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT728TriDel
1. The captioned three appeals have been filed by the appellants against the findings of Commissioner of Customs. In the impugned order, the Commissioner imposed the penalties of Rs. 15,000/- on Sh. Satya Narain Gupta and Rs. 10,000/- each on Shri M.P. Shukla and M/s. Prakash Transport, Calcutta.2. The facts of the case are that on 20-2-1996, Shri Rajbir Sharma, Manager of M/s. Prakash Transport Co. filed a bill of export for allowing export of Mastic Flooring Compound. In the meantime, the Customs Officers received information that in the drums contraband goods were smuggled and that the drums were concealed under bales of cotton fabrics. On examination of the goods, 55 drums from one truck and 55 drums from another truck were found to contain Bitumen substance. As it was not possible to precisely determine the contents, sample was drawn and sent to Chemical Examiner, C.R.C.L., New Delhi for test. On 21-2-1996 and 22-2-1996 M/s. Prakash Transport Co. submitted a letter intimating tha...
Aps Stampings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT421TriDel
1. The stay application was converted into the final hearing of the appeal.2. I have heard Shri N.N. Sharma, Consultant for the Applicants/Appellants and Shri A.M. Tilak, J.D.R. for the Revenue. For the purpose of final disposal, unconditional stay and waiver of the sums demanded was granted.3. The appellants manufacture Stampings and Laminations. They also manufacture dies which in turn are used in the manufacture of such stampings and laminations. They took credit of the duty paid on machinery exclusively used in the manufacture of dies which were cleared without payment of duty for captive consumption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. In view of the provision of Rule 57R the credit was denied on the machinery used to manufacturing activities.The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld this order the present appeal has been filed.4. Shri Sharma at first maintained that the dies in this case were intermediate goods for the manufacture of stampings and laminations. I find no substance in...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Vijay Flexible Containers P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT164TriDel
1. The respondents herein are manufacturers inter alia of "printed shells" and "printed hinge lid blanks" for cigarette packets. They had filed classification lists on 9-3-1982 and 23-4-1982 claiming classification of the above items under T.I. 68 together with the benefit of exemption from duty in terms of Notification 104/82, dated 28-2-1982. Vide Order-in-Original dated 13-6-1983, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise held that both the items in dispute fell for classification under T.I. 17(4) and also denied the exemption under Notification 66/82, dated 28-2-1982 since the products were in the nature of printed boxes. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay who vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 26-6-1986 set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, holding that both the items in dispute are classifiable under T.I. 68. The Department filed E/2449/86-C against this appellate order and the appeal was disposed of by the Larger B...
Collector of Customs Vs. S.P.i.C. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC415
1. The question involved herein is regarding the classification of polishing kit imported by the respondents herein. Initially, they were cleared under Tariff Heading 90.33 as spares for spectrometer. Later on the respondents filed a refund claim claiming exemption under Tariff Heading 90.27 as parts and accessories of spectrometer, not otherwise specified. The original authority did not accept the claim. On appeal before the lower appellate authority the respondents herein succeeded.Hence, this appeal by the Revenue.2. Ld. JDR Shri S.N. Ojha for the Revenue submits that in the appeal Revenue is claiming classification of the said goods under a different tariff heading altogether i.e. under Tariff Heading 38.23 inasmuch as but also of chemicals and compounds and therefore the proper tariff heading for classification according to the Revenue will be the heading under Chapter 38 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.3. We have heard at length the ld. JDR in support of the Revenue's aforesaid ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mukerian Paper Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT640TriDel
1. Revenue has filed the captioned Reference Application stating that a point of law, reading as - "Whether a manufacturer of paper and Paper Boards can take credit of duty paid on Wire and Felt under Rule 57A, when such wire and felt are part of the machinery used in the manufacture of such paper and paper board" arises out of the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/684/97-NB, dated 10-6-1997.2. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, the ld. JDR appearing for the Applicant-Revenue, submits that on a similar issue, a reference has already been allowed by this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Zenith Papers [1997 (95) E.L.T. 670 (Tri.)]. He submits that since the Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that a point of law arises in the matter, therefore, the present reference application may be allowed and the matter referred to the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.3. None appeared for the Respondents herein. However, they have sent a letter dated 8th July, 1998, submitting that the Hon'ble Tribunal in i...
Bhageria Marbles Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT434TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Bhagaria Marbles, the matter relates to the demand of differential Central Excise duty calculated on the basis of the private records recovered from the premises of the appellants on 5-9-1990 when Central Excise officers visited their premises and conducted stock taking. In the private records, the production was entered per sq. mtr. and in their excise records also the stock was entered per sq. mtr. There was a difference. The appellants had explained that the two exercise books recovered were maintained by their contractors for claiming their wages and they did not reflect their correct production. The matter was adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, who demanded a differential duty of Rs. 2,41,422/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.2. I have heard Shri Punkaj Mullick, Advocate, for the appellants. The learned Advocate submitted that the appellants had explained that the exercise books recovered belonged to their contractors and...
Hmm Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC635Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 466 to 468-CE/DLH/91 dated 29.4.1991 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi dismissing three separate appeals filed by the common appellant against three separate orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Gurgaon.2. Original orders were passed on certain price lists filed by the common appellant. Appellant is aggrieved only on two aspects, namely, disallowance of abatement for depot distribution expenses and for "discount" claimed in the price lists.3. That depot distribution expenses would not be admissible for deduction is laid down in M.R.F. Ltd. .4. The particular "discount" disallowed by the lower authorities was referred to in the price lists only as "discount" without indicating the nature of the discount, the class of the buyers who would be eligible for discount and the terms and conditions for allowing discount. When the matters were pending before the Collector (Appeals), the appellant stated tha...
Gupta Rubber Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT481TriDel
1. This appeal on hearing Shri Alok Arora, Advocate and Shri A.M.Tilak, JDR was admitted and was also taken up for final hearing.2. The appellants manufacture Rubber Conveyer Belts. In their declaration under Rule 57G filed on 2-6-1995 they declared "Dipped Nylon Fabric" as an input and showed its classification under sub-heading 5905.20. In doing so they apparently followed similar declaration earlier made by them in July, 1994 in which the same input was shown as falling under the same sub-heading. However, the structure of Chapter 59 underwent a change on 16-3-1995 whereby such goods which were earlier classified under sub-heading 5905.20, now stood classified under sub-heading 5906.99. In July, 1995, the appellants received a consignment of such inputs showing correct classification i.e.subheading 5906.99. The show cause notice dated 1-4-1996 made the allegation that Modvat credit on these goods were taken without a declaration have been made in their regard under Rule 57G. The As...
Rollsprint Packaging Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT141TriDel
1. The issue involved in these appeals, one filed by the assessees and the other by the Revenue against the same impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) is the classification of printed shells for cigarette packets - according to the assessee, the shells are either not excisable commodities or if held to be excisable, would fall for classification under Chapter 49 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985; according to the Revenue, however, they would fall under CET sub-heading 4819.12.2. On hearing Shri Ravindra Narain, learned Counsel and Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR and perusing the order of the Tribunal in the case of ITC Limited vide Final Order Nos. 253 to 256/95-C, dated 5-9-1995, we hold that the Collector (Appeals) has rightly classified the printed shells for cigarette packets under CET sub-heading 4823.90 and accordingly reject both the appeals....
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »