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.
Sri Krishna Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(104)ELT325(Del)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of CWP Nos. 3177/98 and 3276/98. In both the writ petitions respective Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders of the CEGAT passed under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. It appears that a consignment of 133 pieces of woollen woven carpets valued at Rs. 44,45,000/- was found at Tikonia Rly. Station, close to Indo-Nepal Border. The Adjudicating Authority formed an opinion that the goods seized at the railway station were in the process of being taken to Nepal by one Shiv Raj Tiwari. As to Sri Krishna (petitioner in CWP 3177/98) the Adjudicating Authority recorded a finding that 'he had made a false claim to smuggled goods at the railway station by producing a railway receipt.' As to V.C. Rao, and eight others the writ petitioners in CW 3276/98 the finding arrived at the Adjudicating Authority is that they were the persons who had by supporting the false name of Sri Krishna abetted in securing the possession/custody and control ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Monark Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT219TriDel
1. The dispute is in respect of classification of Degaussing Coil.Whether the item in question is classifiable under 8529.00 as claimed by the assessee or under 8544 as per the department is an issue to be considered in this case.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of degaussing coils for use in the colour televisions. The Assistant Collector held that the product is classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.44 on the ground that the same is in the nature of insulated cable assembly and not as a coil or any part of T.V., as claimed by the assessee.3. On an appeal filed by the assessee, the Collector (Appeals) while allowing the appeal observed that item is used as part of the colour T.V. and not used as electric conductors. The Assistant Collector has given no reason or evidence in support of his finding that the product is nothing but an insulated wire assembly. On the other hand, the assessee's claim is duly supported by the certificate produced by them from different manu...
Bansal Auto Parts Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC421
1. Both these appeals involving common question of law and facts are being disposed off through this common order.2. The issue that falls for determination is whether an assessee has an option not to avail exemption under Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993 and instead opt for Modvat scheme. Collector of Central Excise has held that an assessee has no such option. In Appeal No.E/1814/95-NB in case of M/s. S.S. Tins Pvt. Ltd., Collector placed strong reliance on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Ganesh Metal Processing Industry and two others v. Union of India - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 11 (A.P.) = 1995 (57) ECR 252 (A.P.). The Hon'ble High Court held that the assumption that there is an option left to the assessee either to avail of the credit on inputs under Modvat scheme or to avail the exemption from duty under Notification 202 of 1988 is not correct. This option theory according to Hon'ble High Court has no legal basis.3. We have heard both sides. Notification No. 1/...
Everest Press Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC454Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal is against order-in-original No. 139/91 dated 19.7.1991 passed by Collector of Customs, New Delhi confiscating a second hand SOLNA-425 Four Colour Sheet-fed Offset Printing Machine imported by appellant from Sweden the declared price of which was Swedish Kroner (SEK) 220000 but giving the appellant the opportunity for redemption on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation amounting to Rs. 70,000/-besides imposing penalty of Rs. 30,000/-. The said adverse order was passed by the Collector holding that appellant had imported the said machine mis-declaring it as 1983 make whereas it was actually of a much earlier make which being more than seven years, the benefit of import under Open General Licence (OGL) without production of an import licence was not available. The Collector, however, dropped the charge of mis-declaration of value which was proposed in the show cause notice and accepted the declared value. The appeal challenges the adverse findings in the order.2. Shri A....
Cce Vs. D.M. Woodhead
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC108Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts leading to the present appeal filed by the Department are that M/s. D.H. Woodhead Ltd. manufacture automotive shock absorber. In their price lists they claimed lower assessable value for their distributors in comparison to the price meant for stockists by offering 15% trade discount to distributors as against 10% trade discount given to the stockists. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), following the decision in the case of National Auto Accessories Ltd. v. CCE held that different trade discounts given to two different classes of buyers on a principal to principal basis was a legitimate consideration.2. None was present on behalf of the Respondents when the matter was called. We heard Shri K. Srivastava, Ld. SDR who submitted that the 5% Commission was given to the Distributors for procuring orders from the stockists and the promotional cost must form part of the assessable value.3. We observe that the issue involved in the present appeal has been settled by the Ap...
Punjab Power Packs Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT50TriDel
1. In this case, a duty demand of Rs. 2,43,702.21 P. has been confirmed on a quantity of 20,000 litres of liquid electrolytes produced in the appellants factory by mixing of duty paid Potassium Hydroxide (Solid KOH) with DI water to obtain solution of required specific gravity (used for formulation processes and testing of cells used in stationary batteries) and a quantity of 61,379.90 litres of solid KOH and LiOH (Lithium Hydroxide) despatched along with the stationary batteries manufactured by the appellants to their customers, on the ground that liquid electrolyte is an excisable commodity attracting 15% ad valorem of Special Excise duty under sub-heading 38.23 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, and not entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-3-1986 since the stationary batteries for which the liquid electrolyte was used were exempt from duty under Notification No. 68/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. The Adjudicating authority has also imposed a pe...
Collector of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT174TriDel
1. Heard both sides. Question involved in the present appeal of the Revenue is whether the importation of the power transformers and circuit breakers for use in the project of the respondents for improvement of the sub-transmission and distribution network in major cities is covered by Tariff Heading 98.01 and the Project Import Regulations, 1986.2. The lower appellate authority has held on the basis of definition of power project in an independent Notification 67/87-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 330/88-C.E., that transmission sub-stations will also be included within the definition of a 'power project'. The authority has also held, relying on the respondents submissions and evidence put forth to that effect that loan agreement was entered into with the international Bank for Reconstruction and Development in connection with Kerala Power Project etc., it will be covered by the expression "substantial expansion" of the project referred to in Tariff Heading 98.01.3. It is the con...
Sundram Electronics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT378TriDel
1. In this case, a demand of Rs. 6,75,124.22 has been confirmed against the appellants as duty short paid on clearances of metallised plastic films during the period from 22-7-1987 to 31-3-1990, holding that the appellants who are a registered SSI Unit were not eligible to the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.269/86, dated 24-4-1986 and Notification No. 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 for the reason that the bare films on which the appellants carried out metallising were not produced out of goods falling under specified Chapter sub-headings in the notifications viz. CET sub-headings 3901 to 3915 on which duty had already been paid. In addition a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed for contravention of the relevant rules. The extended period of limitation has been invoked by the adjudicating authority.2. Learned Counsel mainly contends that the process of metallising does not amount to manufacture and that the extended period of limitation is not available to...
Tisco Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT636TriDel
1. In all these appeals the issue to be decided is whether appellants herein are entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No.271/86-CE., dated 24-4-1986 for consignments of spares imported by them and cleared after payment of duty and C.V.D. The notification stipulates that exemption is available on excisable goods manufactured in a workshop within a factory and intended for use in the said factory or in any other factory of the same manufacturers. Proviso to Notification cites that in the event of use in a factory of the manufacturer different from the factory by the goods have been manufactured, the assessees ought to follow the procedure set out in the Central Excise Rules.2. We have heard both sides. The goods have been imported into India by the Appellants herein and therefore do not satisfy the conditions of the notification which is applicable to the excisable goods manufactured in a workshop within the factory. In other words the benefit of notification is avail...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Daulatram Dyeing and Big. Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT202TriDel
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 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 or pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »