Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments
Jay Construction Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC277Tri(Delhi)
1. Question involved herein is classification of a machine described as a "paver finisher". The appellants claim the classification under Tariff heading 8429.20 or 8429.19 as a grader and a leveller read with Notification No. 59/87. On the other hand the lower authorities have classified the machine under Tariff Heading 8479.10 which has the following description "Machine and Mechanical Appliances having individual function, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter -machinery for public works building or the like".2. The lower appellate authority's findings for holding the classification under Tariff Heading 84.79 is as follows :- "5. As seen in the literature produced that the subject machine is a self propelled paver finisher (model BB 640) equipped with hopper of 10 tonne capacity and screed to assure a constant flatness of work on uneven grounds. Material from hopper is conveyed to both the sides and is spread by two angers. Laying off width can be controlled by electro...
Tag this Judgment!Vindhya Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT528TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Shree Vindhya Paper Mills Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 19/87 (sic) is available to gum coated paper manufactured by them.2.1 Shri G. Shiv Dass, ld. Advocate, submitted that they undertake the process of gum coating on stamp base paper supplied by the India Security Press in the form of sheet and reels; and that after the process of gumming they were slitting the paper in the form of sheets or reels. They claimed the benefit of Notification No. 49/87 which was allowed to them by the Assistant Collector in order dated 27-6-1990 holding that what was excluded from the scope of Notification No. 49/87 was "gummed or adhesive paper in strips or rolls" and not the gummed paper in sheet or reel form. The appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals) by the Department on the ground that Note 7 to Chapter 48 in H.S.N. indicated, inter alia, that Heading 48.11 applied to paper, in strips or rolls, of a width exceeding 15 cms...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat Metal Processing
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT149TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is the classification of regulators of electric fans known as push button switches and rotary switches without dial, knob and cover. The Collector (A) accepted the classification under sub-heading 8419.99 as part of fans. The order observes that the push buttons are working as regulators controlling the speed of rotation of the fan and therefore they are classifiable as parts. As against this finding of the Commissioner (A), the Revenue contends that as the item is known as switch it should be classified under 85.35 or 85.36.2. Sh. S. Nunthuk Ld. JDR submitted that HSN Explanatory Notes clarify that the heading for switches covers small switches for use in radio apparatus, electrical circuits etc. and specifically mentions push button switches.4. We have perused the records of the case and have considered the submissions. We find that HSN Notes in question is w.r.t. "apparatus for switching electrical circuits". The Note also explains that "These a...
Tag this Judgment!Jaguar and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT453TriDel
1. The appellants herein have imported lyflex hose chrome - 12mm. The authorities below have classified the same as under Tariff Heading 83.07 which reads as follows :- 2. The authority below has ousted Chapter 84 by giving the following findings :- "I have considered the submissions made in appeal. It is an undisputed fact that the goods imported are flexible metal shower hose. There is no difference between a pipe and hose for the followings reasons:- A hose has been defined in the conveying water etc. "Similarly a tube has also been defined by the same dictionary as - "Pipe - a long hollow body". Thus a hose which is in the nature of a flexible pipe can also be termed as tube. Thus there is no substance in the plea of the appellants that these hoses are not flexible tubes of base metals. Further the definition of a 'part' cited by the appellants is applicable only for ITC purposes and not for classification in the Customs Tariff Act. A careful reading of the Chapter Notes of Chapte...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Treatwell Pharmaceuticals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1065TriDel
1. The Department has come up in appeal against the impugned orders under which the Commissioner has remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector with the direction to examine whether the benefit of Notification No. 29/88, dated 1-3-1988 is available or not.2. Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR submitted that the classification list was approved showing rate of duty of 15% which was not challenged by the respondents and as such it was not open to him not to pay the duty at the rate approved by the Department.3. We find that the respondent is claiming the benefit of Notification 29/88 which provides duty at the rate of 10% only in respect of single ingredient formulations based on the list of bulk drugs specified in the second schedule to the Drugs Price (Control) Order. Once the respondents are claiming the benefit of this Notification, the mere fact that it was not given to them cannot stop the assessees from getting the same. In view of this, the remand order passed by the Commissioner (...
Tag this Judgment!Camphor and Allied Products Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT526TriDel
1.The appellants inter alia manufacture Thymol Crystals-IP, Thymo Crystalline Powder-IP and Ter-pineol-BPC falling under Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the CET 1995. They filed classification list for the above mentioned products effective from 10-8-1990 and 1-5-1991 claiming approval as bulk drugs under Notification 31/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 which were approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise subject to production of end use certificate. At the time of assessment of RT12 returns for the months of August and September, 1991, it was found that the appellants had cleared the three above mentioned products without production of end use certificate; hence three show cause notices-cum-demands were issued in March, April and May, 1992 which were adjudicated by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 31-5-1993, holding that the assessees were not entitled to avail of concessional rate of duty in respect of clearances under certain gate passes for which no end use certificat...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Dhoot Compack Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1028TriDel
1. Short question involved in this appeal is whether the benefit of third proviso to Rule 9 is available to the respondents herein for removal of goods which stipulates removal of goods without payment of duty for manufacture of another commodity in the factory. Third proviso envisages 3 conditions on the fulfilment of which the goods could be removed without payment of duty for manufacture of another commodity. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents herein that they are not entitled to the benefit of third proviso to Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On adjudication the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise held that condition Nos. 1 & 2 were fulfilled but the condition No. 3 of third proviso was not fulfilled and hence the benefit of the said proviso was denied to the respondents.2. On appeal, the respondents herein succeeded before the lower appellate authority which held that the third condition has also been fulfilled inasmuch as the final product was liable t...
Tag this Judgment!Eveready Indus. (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT818TriDel
2. Three issues survive before the Tribunal in this appeal if a Modvat assessee, after relief has been given at the stage of adjudication. Two issues have only been pressed before me. These are as follows :- (i) Whether packing and forwarding charges shown separately in the Invoice, but duly paid thereon by adding those charges to assessable value, are liable to be excluded from assessable value, as contended by the Officers controlling the Modvat Assessee/Appellant and consequently duty paid thereon has been held as not admissible to Modvat credit. The aforesaid question raised by the authorities below is without any merit and substance. They have no jurisdiction to re-assess the goods while considering the admissibility or non-admissibility of any Modvat credit of duty paid by a person purchasing inputs for use in manufacture of this final product. (ii)(a) Whether invoice not pre-printed as "Original...", "Duplicate..." and "Triplicate..." but rubber stamped as above is valid for Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Seva Nivritt Ispat Karmchari Association Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)106; 74(1998)DLT685; 1998(47)DRJ143; (1999)ILLJ956Del
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. Seven petitioners have filed the writ petition claiming pensionary benefits. The first and seventh petitioners are associations and petitioners 2 to 5 are individuals. The prayer made is for a declaration that petitioners 2 to 6 and similarly situate retired employees and from Bhilai Steel Plant and Rourkela Steel Plant of the Steel Authority of India with the SAIL Employees. Pension Scheme was introduced for SAIL employees retiring after 1.1.1989. On introduction of scheme necessary recovery has been effected by the managements of various Steel Plants of SAIL, including Bhilai and Rourkela Steel Plants. As such the petitioners are also eligible to receive pension since necessary recovery had been affected by the steel plants in which they were working. They are now claiming pension from the Steel Authority of India.2. Mr.Bhim Sain, Senior Manager(Personnel) of respondent No.2 filed a common counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 2,4 & 5. It is stated in t...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Dutt (Ex.L.Nk.) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)115; 76(1998)DLT429; 1999(48)DRJ376
ORDER No. 810702381 L/NK Ravi Dutt of F/52 Bn CRPF who has been declared completely and permanently incapacitated for further service in the CRPF, by the Board of Medical Officers of GC, CRPF, Bhubaneshwar, in consequence of 'BILATERAL SENSO NEURAL HEARING' vide Medical Certificate dated 27.6.94, is hereby invalidated out from service with effect from 27.7.94 (FNO. 2. Under the authority of Rule 20(1)(b)(ii) of CCS (Leave) Rules and Rule 5(3) of CCS (Medical Examination) Rule, 1957, read with DD (Adm), CRPF, letter No. P.III. 4/82-Adm.II dated 13/7/82, the period from the date he was declared unfit for further service by CMO, BH-I, CRPF, New Delhi to the date he has been declared completely and permanently incapacitated for further service in CRPF by the Board of Medical Officer at GCBBSR and notice period under Rule 5(2)(A) of CCS (Medical Examination Rules, 1857) till the date of actual retirement i.e. 11.10.93 to 26.6.94 (259 days)and 16.7.94 to 26.7.94 (11 days) is hereby regularis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »