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.
Shree Shantinath Silk Industries Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC622
1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. 19/MP/90, dated 17-12-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. The Collector confiscated processed man-made fabrics seized from the premises of M/s. Mukund Silk Mills (P) Ltd. allowing redemption on payment of Rs. 2.5 lakhs as fine, such fabrics seized from the premises of M/s. Shree Shantinath Silk Industries and on failure to produce the subject goods (released on bond) directing appropriation of bank guarantee for Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 2,200/-, confirming demand of duty of excise amounting to Rs. 8,83,857.03 illicitly procured and removed by M/s. Shantinath Silk Industries, imposing penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on M/s. Shantinath Silk Industries and of Rs. 16 lakhs on each of the other appellants.3. SSI, as job worker was processing grey fabrics supplied by the other appellants and clearing the processed fabrics to the latter without payment of central excise duty (as the tariff rate of duty was nil) but on paymen...
Hindustan Forgings Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(79)LC307Tri(Delhi)
2. The appellants herein filed a Bill of Entry on 12.5.1993 for clearance of consignment of goods declared by them as "Brackets" (outboard motor parts) under chapter heading 84.09. The assessable value of goods was shown in the Bill of Entry at Rs. 44,606/- and the total duty calculated on the goods was shown as Rs. 30,666/- 3. On examination by the Shed Examiner it was noticed that the item imported is actually "Low Noise Block (LNB) converters" and not "Brackets" as declared by the appellants. The goods were therefore retained for verification as to the description of the goods. One piece of the sample was shown to the representative of Department of Electronics, stationed at the Air Cargo Unit for opinion. One Shri S.K.Aggarwal, Scientist/Engineer opined that the goods imported appeared to be 'LNB' suitable for Satellite Receiving Dish. The Department also took the opinion of Shyam Antenna Electronic (P) Ltd. They certified that 'Sample is that of LNB and the Shape and size is iden...
Commissioner (Customs) Vs. Manraj Jewellers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT198TriDel
1. When the matter was called Shri I.K. Sharma, Accountant of the Respondent prayed for adjournment on the ground of his sickness. We have not agreed to the said request in view of the points involved, having very short compass, being question of law.2. Relevant facts for disposal of this appeal of Revenue are as follows : 3. The respondents herein, among others, imported certain machines registering themselves with Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council either as a merchant exporter or as manufacturer exporter by misdeclaring to that Council to the effect that these machines would be used for export promotion but it is alleged by the Revenue that the respondents wrongfully claimed the concessional rate of Customs duty under Customs Notification 159/86 dated 1-3-1986 and the goods manufactured with the help of imported chain making machines were sold in the open market and were not sent for export. This action of the respondent is allegedly violative to undertaking given by the ...
Brisk Surgical Cotton Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT226TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad confirming duty of Rs. 7,83,252.52 p. on Absorbent Cotton Wool I.P. manufactured and cleared by the appellants during the period from 1987-88 to 1990-91 on the ground that they had wrongly availed the benefit of total exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 185/87-C.E., dated 17-7-1987 which provides for exemption inter alia to absorbent Cotton Wool falling under GET sub-heading 30.04 subject to the condition that such goods are manufactured by a manufacturer by whom or on whose behalf, no such goods are sold under a brand name - the case of the department is that the appellants sold the product in dispute under the brand name "BRISK", and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,50,0007-.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11-1-1990, the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises of the appellants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of absorbent Cotton Wool I.P.falling under ...
Svadeshi Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT541TriDel
1. The appellants manufactured textiles. For printing of the textiles they made printing frames which were bolting cloth coated with sensitising chemicals. The department held such frames to be classifiable under Heading 5909.00 and demanded duty on such frames captively consumed. Before the Additional Collector, the claim was made that these goods merit classification under Heading 8442.00 and were covered under Notification No. 201/87. The Additional Collector in his order classified the products under 5909.00 and confirmed the demand.Hence this appeal.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, Advocate relies upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat v. Kohinoor Dyg. & Ptg. Works, reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 1043 (Tribunal) in which printing frames made of photo sensitive chemicals coated fabric were classified under Heading 84.42. This judgment was later accepted by the Board in terms of Circular No. 51/51/94-CX, dated 30-8-1974 (sic). In view of t...
Ajay Kumar Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT419TriDel
1. By this Misc. application, the applicants have requested for compliance of the Stay Order by debiting the amount in R.G. 23A Pt. II Register.2. Shri A.C. Jain, ld. Advocate submits that the cash crunch in respect of the applicants is very severe and that the applicants were not in a position to deposit the amount as directed in the Stay Order. He submits that the applicants have sufficient amount in R.G. 23A Pt. II Register; that they may be permitted to debit the amount in that Register. He submitted that in an earlier case Birla Yamaha Ltd. v.CCE, Meerut reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 396, this Tribunal had permitted pre-deposit by debiting the Modvat amount in RG. 23A Pt. H.3. Shri P.K. Jain, ld. DR opposes the request and points out that a perusal of the Stay Order will show that it was the offer of the appellant on the basis of which the Tribunal had agreed that 25% of the amount may be deposited in cash and 25% of the duty demanded may be secured by Bank guarantee. He submits t...
Commet Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Customs)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC407
1. Learned Advocate Shri K. Kumar in support of the subject ROM application points out that the original authority vide its Order dated 2-4-1991 confiscated the imported goods under Section 11 (m) & (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, but gave an option to the applicants for redemption of the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 75,000/-. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. Two issues were involved in the appeal before the Tribunal which decided the same vide its Final Order No. C/2886/97-B2. The Tribunal vide its order gave the following directions in respect of those two issues :- 1. The matter relating to valuation is remanded to Adjudicating Authority for de now decision after disclosing evidence to the appellants and affording them a reasonable chance of being heard. 2. The part of the order which denies exemption under Notification No. 91/89, dated 1-3-1989 is set aside.3. He submits that the Tribunal has not directed anything regarding refund of the fine and penalt...
Jai Ambe Plastex Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT297TriDel
1. The short point involved in the appeal is whether the appellants can avail of benefit of SI. No. 40 of the Notification No. 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 or he should avail of benefit of Nil rate of duty provided at SI. No. 39 of the said notification.2. Shri V.B. Joshi, learned Advocate submitted that they are manufacturing plastic card cans from plastic granules and other metal items. During the process of manufacture, plastic sheets emerge at the intermediate stage. They had claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification 53/88. However, the Dept. directed them to avail of the total exemption from payment of duty under SI. No. 39 of the notification and ordered payment of duty on plastic sheets as benefit of Notification 217/86 will not be available to finished goods, being chargeable to nil rate of duty. He submitted that it is settled law that when two options are available to an assessee, he is free to opt for the option best suitable to him. He relied upon the decision in the c...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Soumag Electronics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT167TriDel
1. The assessees were manufacturing computers and also information display systems. They sought classification for both under Heading 84.71 and claimed benefit of Notification No. 76/86-C.E. A show cause notice was issued seeking denial of the exemption to the display system. The Assistant Collector in his order held that display systems were classifiable under Chapter Heading 85.31 and denied the benefit of the notification which was applicable to goods falling under Chapter Heading 84.71. In his order in appeal the Collector upheld denial of the notification. However, he held that the display boards were classifiable under Heading 84.79 and set aside the classification under Heading 85.31 decided by the Assistant Collector. Against this order the present appeal from Revenue is filed.2. We have heard Shri D.S. Negi, SDR for the Revenue. The respondents were not present.4. Heading 85.31 covered electric sound or visual signalling apparatus and specifically covered indicator panels. He...
Hindalco Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT636TriDel
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 28-2-1997 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Allahabad.2. In this case the benefit of Modvat credit is denied to the appellant on the ground that appellant had not filed necessary declaration in respect of Tibor Rod.3. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in the declaration the input was declared as Extruded products - Bars and Rods classifiable under sub-heading 7604.30 of Central Excise Tariff.He submits that Tibor Rods in question, were imported and in the Bill of entry these were described as Titanium Boron Aluminium Master Alloy Rods and were assessed under sub-heading 7604.30 of the Excise Tariff for the purpose of payment of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. He, therefore, submits that the appeal be allowed.5. In this case appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and products thereof. Appellant filed detailed declaration in respe...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »