Delhi Court June 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 4 of about 122 results (0.019 seconds)Deloitte Haskins and Sells Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT515TriDel
1. The appellants are a multi-national Chartered Accountancy firm. They received from their head office in USA, 40 used Laptop Computers. The dispute is with regard to the valuation of these computers and the import policy in their case.2. Arguing the appeal, the learned Counsel Shri Shekhar Vyas submits that the computers were five years old and the Customs authorities adopted their original value and allowed some depreciation for the purpose of fixing the assessable value. He submits that this procedure is entirely erroneous as the computers were more than 5 years old and had become obsolete and were of no commercial value in USA. Therefore, their price should have been fixed at the current CIF value, taking into account relevant facts. He also referred to Board's F. No.314/19/94-FTT No. IV, dated 22-9-1994 relating to depreciation of computers. He also submits that the customs authorities had not disclosed to them the authority for the rates of depreciation allowed.He submits that ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Eswaran and Sons Engineers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT512TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the eligibility of the Isolators classifiable under sub-heading No. 8536.90 of the Central Excise Tariff to the benefit of Notification No.160/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. In the Isolators three isolating switches were mounted on a common base with a protective apparatus in the form of a door inter-locking system to prevent accidental locking of the door when the isolator was in on position. It was designed for isolating section of an electric line. They were known as Single Pole, Dipole or Tripole according to the number of switches and circuits incorporated. From the benefit of Notification No. 160/86-C.E. switches were excluded. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise had taken a view that isolator was classifiable as a switch and the isolators were not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 160/86-CE., dated 1-3-1986.The exempted rate was 15% adv. while the non-exempted rate was 20% adv.The duty involved was Rs. 768.40 ...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC634Tri(Delhi)
1. By show cause notice dated 27.7.1988, the Department alleged that the appellants had falsely and fraudulently declared lower assessable value in the price lists in Part I for the period 1.10.1975 to 31.3.1980 with intent to evade payment of duty and had wilfully suppressed the fact that the values declared in the price list during the period were incorrect. They were therefore, called upon to show cause why the amounts realised on account of advertisement expenses, security and administrative charges should not be added to the assessable value and differential duty between the duty already paid and on the basis of revised assessable values for various brands of cigarettes should not be demanded and why penalty should not be imposed. The show cause notice also referred to an earlier show cause notice dated 26.3.1987 demanding administrative charges for the period 1.11.1979 to 28.2.1983 and another show cause notice dated 7.10.1987 relating to differential duty required to be paid on...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpati Ropeways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC242Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh by which he has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 27,55,480/- on Damodar Ropeways & Construction Co. (P) Ltd. applying the extended period of limitation, on Aerial Passage Ropeway System in unassembled/knocked down condition (consisting of fabricated structures, electrical equipments, communication systems, safety devices, cables, cabins, etc.) supplied by M/s. Damodar Ropeways and Construction Co. P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the second appellant) to M/s. Ganapati Ropeways P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the first appellant) holding the Ropeway System to be a teleferic falling under CET sub-heading 8428.90, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 28 lakhs on the second appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, and a penalty of an equal amount on the first appellant under Rule 209A. He has also directed the second appellant to pay in...
Tag this Judgment!Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT246TriDel
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the appellants.Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a classification list, which was provisionally approved by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector.The appellants filed appeal against the provisional approval of classification list and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector on the classification list and in the meantime, Supdt. assessed the RT 12 return filed by the appellants. The appellants filed appeal against the provisional assessment of RT 12 return. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) vide impugned order held that no appeal lies against the provisional assessment of RT 12 returns. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), further directed the jurisdictional Supdt. to decide the case finally as early as possible or put up the matter to his Assistant C...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Sugar Corpration. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC645Tri(Delhi)
1. This is the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing this appeal for the reasons that the appellants had approached the Central Government by way of revision, as issue involved was shortage of the goods, and the orders of the Revisional authorities was challenged before the High Court under Writ Petition No. 5325 of 1993, and decision thereon was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP and the Review Petition No. 4596 of 1995 was filed before the High Court as per the orders of the Supreme Court, and as per the orders in review petition the appellant had to file the appeal before the Tribunal. In the meantime, State Govt. closed down the appellants Units on 8-9-1998, and the employees were transferred, and some skeleton staff were in the unit. In view of this position necessary steps could not be taken to file the appeal. There was no one dealing to attend the letters pertaining to the case, as such the Counsel wrote to the Headquarters of the unit w...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Patel Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT166TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. B.S. Patel, Yeotmal, the matter relates to the classification of goods, which were sold under the brand name of (1) Chetan Pandharpuri Zarda; and (2) Chetan Lawangi Zarda.Before 1-3-1986, the appellants were paying central excise duty on these products as branded chewing tobacco. On introduction of the new Central Excise Tariff, they pleaded that the goods did not attract duty under Heading 2404.41 on the ground that the goods remained as unmanufactured tobacco even when they were repacked. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay observed that as declared by them in their application for L-4 Licence, they were using katha and chuna as raw materials with tobacco in the preparation of their products and as the goods were then packed and name printed, they were covered by Heading No. 24.04 of the new Central Excise Tariff.3. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, ld. SDR and perused the records. We find that on introduction of the new Central Excise T...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Sunrise Paper and Board Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC795
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 6-4-1995 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that supports of paper board, known as straw board strips/patties for use in Textile Mills for wrapping the cloth thereon is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 4822 of the Central Excise.3. Learned SDR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that the respondents are manufacturing the patties of straw boards by gumming 3-4 straw boards for wrapping the fabrics in the Textile Mills. He submits that sub-heading 48.22 of the Central Excise Tariff covers bobbins, spools, cops and similar supports of paper pulp or paper board. He submits that the product in question are flat supports. He relies upon the Explanatory Notes of HSN and submits that the Explanatory Notes specifically excludes flat supports of various shapes from the scope of Heading 48.22. He also relies upon the decision of the Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Yuil Measures India Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC411Tri(Delhi)
1. The Commissioner in the impugned order confiscated capital goods valued at Rs. 3,63,62,019/- and raw materials valued at Rs. 36,84,288/- and gave the appellants an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 40 lakhs. The Ld. Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 2,09,54,801/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on M/s. Yuil Measures India Ltd. and Rs. 1,00,000/- on Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, Director of the appellant's firm.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant was approved for manufacture and export of thermometers. During the years 1991 to 1994, this unit imported various raw materials, consumables and capital goods free of duties of Customs availing the benefit of Notification Nos. 339/85-Cus dt. 25.11.1985 and 133/94-Cus dt.22.6.1994. It was alleged that as per para I (vii) of the said Notification No. 339/85, the capital goods and raw materials were to be installed/used in the zone or re-exported within a period ...
Tag this Judgment!Snamp Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC399Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 8-3-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Johnson & Johnson's prickly heat powder during the period from 26-5-1987 to 18-5-1989 on loan licence basis for and on behalf of Johnson & Johnson Ltd., Bombay. The appellants, therefore, filed classification lists claiming classification on Johnson & Johnson's prickly heat powder under sub-heading 3003.19 of the Central Excise Tariff. A show cause notice was issued on 24-4-1992 for classifying the Johnson & Johnson's prickly heat powder under sub-heading 3003.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. After adjudication, the Collector of Central Excise, in the impugned order, held that the issue in respect of classification of prickly heat powder is pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition filed by M/s.Johnson & Johnson. In these circumstances, he d...
Tag this Judgment!