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. Star Plastic
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT170TriDel
1. The respondents herein had filed classification lists effective from 1-4-1990 in respect of plastic articles such as PVC jars with caps, PVC shampoo bottles, plastic caps for shampoo bottles, etc. claiming classification under GET sub-heading 3923.90 attracting 15 % BED + 5% SED and plastic moulds for making chocolates claiming classification under GET Sub-heading 3926.90 attracting 15 % BED and 5 % SED in terms of Sl. No. 40 of the table annexed to Notification 53/88, claiming Modvat credit on inputs. The lists were approved by the Assistant Collector on 10-9-1990. The Department was aggrieved by the approval accorded to the classification lists and hence filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) to decide the admissibility of Sl. No. 40 of Notification 53/88. The lower appellate authority upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector; hence this appeal by the Revenue.2. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR and Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate.3...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. thermo Plast
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT173TriDel
1. The respondents herein filed a classification list for their product "polyurethene insulation in rigid form" claiming classification under GET sub-heading 3926.10 attracting 15% BED + 5% SED under Notification 54/88 dated 1-3-1988 as amended, and also claiming Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs. The classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector on 2-7-1990, on the basis that the product in question was not to be considered as excisable goods, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Milton Plastics v. Collector of Central Excise (Final Order No. 655/90-C, dated 27-6-1990), and there being no duty on the final product, Modvat credit on inputs could not be allowed.Accordingly, the Assistant Collector filed an application in Form EA2 in July 1991 to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who decided the appeal holding that since the goods are not excisable and not liable to duty, the assessees could not claim Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs.2. We have heard S...
U.P. State Textiles Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC116
1. The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.462-CE/MRT/96, dated 1-10-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad upholding the Order-in-Original No. 59(94), dated 21-12-1994 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rampur disallowing Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 55,136.55 relating to certain capital goods claimed by the appellant.2. Shri P.K. Srivastava, learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant states that they had filed their declaration as required under Rule 57T of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the capital goods in question. They had also been filing necessary D-3 intimation about the receipt of such capital goods to their Range Officer. They had filed a further declaration on 5-7-1994 after being directed by the department to file a proper declaration, the earlier one being held to be not sufficient. The capital goods in question had been received by them under cover of 15 invoices during the period 6-3-199...
Heavy Water Board Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT210TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by M/s. Heavy Water Board is whether the benefit of Notification No. 200/86 in respect of Potassium Metal produced by them and which is used in the manufacture of heavy water is available.2. Briefly stated the facts are, that M/s. Heavy Water Plant, Department of Atomic Energy, Baroda manufacture Potassium Metal which was used by them to manufacture heavy water. They did not declare the activity of manufacture and removal of Potassium metal as the same was consumed in plants owned by Government of India and benefit of Notification No. 200/86 was available to them. The Potassium metal was also removed to other heavy water plants at Talchar, Tuticorin and Thai; that the Collector, Central Excise, in the impugned order, dated 30-5-1991, confirmed a demand of Excise duty amounting to Rs. 18,32,297.20 in respect of Potassium metal cleared during the period from 1-3-1986 to 30-9-1987 holding that the impugned product was cleared to Rashtriya Chemica...
Grasim Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT95TriDel
1. These two appeals originated out of refund claims filed by the appellants herein raising the question of Classification of goods with description 'Sintered Filter Media' to be used in Viscose filtration machine as a component part of the later. Ms. Shruti, ld. Advocate submitted that this issues stands decided in the appellant's favour in their own case by the Tribunal reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 607 (Tribunal). It has been held therein that the classification of the said goods would be under sub-heading 8421.99 of the CET (sic) 1975 has contented by the appellants and would be eligible for benefits of Notification No. 172/84-Cus. (as amended) vide entry 18. Ld. Advocate, therefore, submits that these appeals be allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.2. Ld. SDR A.K. Agarwal submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Appellate Authority without going into merits of the classification; it has held that the Asstt. Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chhabria Brothers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT198TriDel
1. The respondents herein are engaged in the making of printing paste.The Department was of the view that the printing paste made by the respondents was a manufactured commodity classifiable under sub-heading 3204.29 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, by application of Note 6 to Chapter 32, according to which conversion of unformulated, unstandardised or unprepared dyes into formulated, standardised or prepared form ready for use in the process of dyeing by reduction of any particle size, addition of dispersing agents or diluents, alone shall amount to manufacture. The respondents had contended that they had purchased duty paid standardised, formulated dyes and prepared it by mixing various ingredients together to form a readily usable paste.The lower appellate authority has applied Note 6 to Chapter 32 and has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, allowing the appeal "subject to the condition that what was received by the textile mills was in fact formulated, standardised o...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Elcom Precision Electronics Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT166TriDel
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. GSM-308/90 B. III, dated 28-3-1990 allowing exemption under Notification No. 160/86 in respect of 'actuators'. The aforesaid notification denies exemption to switches. The impugned order holds that 'actuator' in question is not switches and they are not commercially known as switches. The order also states that technically also they are not switches, though no reason for the finding has been given.2. The Revenue has challenged the order on the ground that Explanatory Notes in Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (page 1389) clarify that push button switches are classifiable as 'switches'.Revenue also submits that the Collector has committed an error in holding that the goods are not in commercial parlance 'switches'.3. Learned DR reiterated the contentions made in the appeal. He drew attention in particular to the Explanatory Notes. When the case was called no one represented the respondent.4. We h...
thermoplast Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT171TriDel
1. The appellants herein are manufacturers inter alia of plastic thermoware articles insulated with rigid polyurethane foam arising as insulating material by the one shot process (in situ process). Vide letter dated 6-4-1988 they submitted that the rigid PU foam is not excisable in view of judicial pronouncements. The appellants were made to pay duty on this product in the light of Trade Notice 128/88 dated 6-9-1988. After the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Milton Plastics (Final Order No. 655/90-C, dated 27-6-1990) the appellants once again submitted to the Department that the rigid PU foam was not excisable. In July 1991, the Classification List No. 1/88 approved by the Assistant Collector under which the appellant paid duty under protest on rigid PU foam was reviewed and the Assistant Collector was directed to file an application before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) to hold that the rigid PU foam is not "goods" within the meaning of the Excise Law and Modvat cr...
D.P. Steel Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT243TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether Modvat credit can be denied only for the reason that the invoice issued by dealer did not contain the full particulars of the manufacturer.2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants.The hearing notice has been sent to both appellants and their Counsel on record. The matter was taken up for disposal after hearing the ld.DR.3. The appellants manufacture ingots and avail of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 114/97, dated 13-3-1997 disallowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 5,29,203/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- holding that the invoices on the strength of which Modvat credit was taken by the appellants did not contain the details prescribed under Rule 57GG(4) pertaining to the full particulars of the manufacturer. The Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the Order of the lower authority holding that the credit should not h...
Suresh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)125; 1998(3)Crimes555; 74(1998)DLT607; 1998(46)DRJ784
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. By this criminal revision, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of his conviction u/s 304A IPC which has been upheld in Appeal by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and also the sentence imposed. The Trial Court had convicted him for offences u/s 304A and 279 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. of one year u/s 304A and to a fine of Rs.1,000/- u/s 279 IPC.2. In appeal, conviction u/s 304A has been upheld. However, the sentence has been reduced to R.I. of six months and in view of conviction u/s 304A IPC, the conviction and sentence under Section 279 IPC have been set aside. 3. The petitioner was charged in that he on 20.4.1990 at about 2.35 P.M. was driving bus No.DEP 6218 in rash and negligent manner started the bus suddenly while the deceased passenger was boarding the bus who fell down and was crushed by the left rear wheel of the bus and died afterwards.4. Prosecution inter alias had examined PW-1 Priya Swamy and PW-9 Const. Sanwar Mal as eye witnesses...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »