Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tender Care International
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT424TriDel
1. In the above appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirming classification of 'Air Plast' Air Bubble Cushion films under CET sub-heading 3923.90 as "article for packing of goods, of plastics". According to the Revenue, the product is nothing but a laminated plastic film hence meriting classification under CET sub-heading 3920.38.2. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh learned DR and Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Advocate. We agree with the learned Counsel that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Southern Zonal Bench in the case of Aeropack Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore (Final Order No. 1086/96, dated 25-6-1996) in which the Tribunal has upheld classification of the identical product under CET sub-heading 3923.90. The Tribunal has held that the article is admittedly specifically used for packing of goods as packing material and Tariff Heading 3923, as it is worded, clearly sets out t...
Tag this Judgment!Tisco Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT878TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 8-11-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. The dispute is in respect of classification of plates. The Assistant Collector has classified the item under Heading 7208.11 as against the classification under Heading 7208.91 claimed by the assessee. A classification list was filed in pursuance of the Notification 89/88, dated 1-3-1988. It was the contention of the party before the Collector (A) that Assistant Collector has unilaterally changed the classification without giving an opportunity of the personal hearing and without assigning any cogent reasons whatsoever for such amendment. The Collector (A) while deciding the matter has not dealt with the issue of denial of principles of natural justice but proceeded to confirm the classification of the product under 7208.11 as held by the Assistant Collector.72.08 - Flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a widt...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mukti Transformer Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT767TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 20-11-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, the matter relates to the jurisdiction of the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise in adjudicating the Modvat matter in which the credit involved was Rs. 1,19,495/-. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, had agreed with the submissions made by the appellants' counsel that the Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise had exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding the matter. The appellate authority did not give any finding on the merits of the case.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents, M/s. Mukti Transformers Ltd. Earlier the matter had come up on 27-7-1998. At that time also, no one appeared for the respondents. As the facts are not disputed and the question involved is only of jurisdiction, I am proceedings to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Shiv Kumar, JDR, who is...
Tag this Judgment!Pyrene-rai Metal Treatments Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC546Tri(Delhi)
1. The correct classification of the product "Pyroclean 17" manufactured by the appellants herein, arises for determination in this appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai who has confirmed classification of the product as "cleaning preparation" under CET sub-heading 3402.90 - the asses-sees claimed classification as "degreasing chemicals-powder chemicals (alkaline cleaners)" under CET sub-heading 3823.00, which covers "residual products of the chemical or allied industries, not elsewhere specified or included".2. We have heard Shri B.N. Rangwani, learned Advocate and Shri Satnam Singh, learned SDR.3. The appellants are manufacturers of various chemical compounds used for treatment of metals in various industries such as automobile manufacture. The product in dispute is a heavy duty alkaline cleaner designed for cleaning of iron and steel and is particularly suitable if the cleaned work is to be subsequently bonderised or parkerized. It is used in...
Tag this Judgment!Leading Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT763TriDel
1. M/s. Leading Engg. Works (Appellants) have two units one at Bahadurgarh and the other at Delhi. They manufacture parts (semi-finished) in the Bahadurgarh unit, transfer them to the Delhi unit and use them after completion in the manufacture of lathe, which are cleared on payment of duty. The semi-finished parts produced in the Bahadurgarh unit were being transferred for further processing and completion under Rule 56B of Central Excise Rules till the end of 1988-89. They also had been granted specific permission for such movement of goods under Rule 56B. They had applied for the extension of the permission for 1989-90 also; but the same was not granted. Instead, demand of duty has been made in respect of the goods moved from Bahadurgarh unit to Delhi unit on the ground that the movement has taken place without payment of duty and without obtaining permission under Rule 56B. The appellant submitted that they were entitled to Rule 56B, they were enjoying the permission all along and ...
Tag this Judgment!Telemecanique and Controls (i) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT555TriDel
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. There is no request for adjournment and no representation. We have heard Shri R.D.Negi, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of electrical goods falling under tariff sub-heading 8536.90 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 was filing price lists in Part-II from time to time declaring prices F.O.R.destination and clearing the goods on payment of duty on approved price. In respect of the period from August 1986 to December 1986, appellant filed refund claim on 15-10-1987 on the ground that the price on the basis of which assessable value was determined included the cost of transportation, transit insurance and of secondary packing and these elements could not have been included in the assessable value and thus, excess duty had been paid. The Assistant Collector issued show cause notice to the appellant stating that the claim was made only on the strength of costing certificate issued by the Chartered Accou...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Insat Heat Exchangers (P.) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT192TriDel
1. In this appeal of the Revenue, it has been urged that the two chemicals namely Trichloro Ethylene and Carbon Tetra Chloride are not entitled to the Modvat credit which has been taken by the respondents herein, on the ground that these two chemicals have been used for cleaning the goods. The contention of the Revenue in its appeal is that the use of the 'inputs' has been made for cleaning purposes only. And therefore, these are not essential inputs for manufacturing the final products/finished products.2. We have heard both sides. We have recorded the aforesaid plea of the Revenue appellant, just to dismiss the same as having no substance in the justification, made by the Revenue, regarding essential input or non-essential input for the purpose of Modvat credit. In Modvat scheme, once a commodity has been described as 'inputs', distinction regarding essentiality or non-essentiality of the input is immaterial. Hence we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue....
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Smt. Lata Rani Mehta
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)69ITD173(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the deletion of penalty of Rs. 54,000 imposed under s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and relates to the asst. yr. 1978-79.2. We have heard the rival submission. The assessee is a partner in Mehra Sons, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, a leading firm of Jewellers. During the relevant assessment year, assessee filed her return of wealth for Rs. 5,98,600. The assessment was completed on Rs. 23,94,620. The following additions to the net wealth were sustained in appeal : (i) Enhancement in the value of jewellery to the tune of Rs. 13,15,355 as against Rs. 1,84,070 shown by the assessee; (ii) Disallowance of liability in respect of loan taken from bank against the security of fixed deposit - Rs. 1,12,385.3. Shri Salil Aggarwal, learned counsel for the assessee appeared before us. It was contended that the jewellery was valued by an approved valuer. Reference was made to the clarification given by the CBDT in this regard. ...
Tag this Judgment!R.V. Lakshmi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)332; 75(1998)DLT632; 1998(47)DRJ788
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner who was working in the third respondent school submitted an application for voluntary retirement. That was accepted by the Committee of the third respondent school and was forwarded to the MCD. On the 20th of April, 1993, following order was passed by the concerned authority. 'Director(Edu) vide his orders dated 30.3.93 has been pleased to accept voluntary retirement of Smt.R.V.Lakshmi, A.T. w.e.f.31.3.1993.' 2. Subsequent to this, the petitioner claimed the retiral benefits. That was not granted. thereforee, the petitioner has filed the writ petition claiming the release of gratuity amounting to Rs.11,480/- with interest 18% per annum w.e.f.1.4.1993. During the pendency of the writ petition, Realizing the mistake, on the 2nd of July, 1997, the Deputy Education officer(Grants) of the MCD issued the following corrigendum: 'In the office order issued earlier vide letter No.66/Grants/Edu./93 dated 20.4.93 regarding voluntary retirement of Smt.R.V....
Tag this Judgment!Grandlay Electricals (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Vidya Batra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)618; AIR1999Delhi1; 1999(1)ARBLR95(Delhi); 75(1998)DLT675
Mohd. Shamim, J.1. These are two applications in Suit Nos. 1616/90 and 2461/96 for issue of an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from using the word 'GRANDLAY' or 'HENLAY' in connection with their business and goods. They have further prayed through the said applications that the defendants be restrained from using any trade mark deceptively similar or identical to the trade mark 'GRANDLAY' and GRANDLAY ELECTRICAL (INDIA)'.2. Brief facts which led to the presentation of the present applications are as under: that the plaintiff No. 1 (in Suit No. 2461/96) are a partnership firm duly registered with the Registrar of Firms since the year 1969. Plaintiff No. 1 was formed for the purpose of manufacturing wires and cables/electric cabals and insulated wires of different sizes. The turnover of the plaintiff No. 1 for the year ending March, 1996 was more than Rs. 13 crores. It is hoped that the turnover of the plaintiff during the year 1996-97 would ne...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »