Delhi Court July 1999 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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Perfect Circle Victor Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC141Tri(Delhi)
1.1 Respondents herein are manufacturers of gaskets from cork purchased from the market. Duty is discharged on the gaskets. But gaskets waste that arises during the course of manufacture of such gaskets is sought to be levied by the authorities below as agglomerated cork under Tariff Heading 45.01 because the waste is mentioned in the Explanatory Notes to HSN under 45.01.1.2. On this contention, the finding of the lower appellate authority is as follows:- "I have gone through the submissions of the appellants. Chapter 45 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act is in respect of cork and articles of cork. There is no mention of waste and scrap of cork in the Chapter Heading No. 45.01. There is considerable force in the contention of the appellants that the Explanatory Notes of HSN cannot be applied for classifying the goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act in absence of specific mention of waste in the Chapter heading. The entire Explanatory Notes of HSN cannot be read into ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Metal Box India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT271TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the printed sheets which were used by the customers of the respondents, M/s. Metal Box India Ltd., for the manufacture of the jacket of the dry cell batteries. The respondents were bringing the duty paid sheets which had been classified in the hands of their suppliers under Sub-heading No. 7210.20 of the Tariff if the width was of 600 mm or more and under Sub-heading No. 7212.20 if the width was less than 600 mm. They were processing these sheets and the sheets as cleared were being classified by them under sub-heading No. 7210.30 or 7212.30 depending upon the width of the sheet. It was alleged in the show cause notice that these sheets were nothing but the battery jackets and the same were classifiable under Sub-heading No. 8506.00 as parts of dry cell batteries. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, observed in her order-in-appeal that these printed sheets were supplied to M/s. Toshiba A...
Maharaja Engg. and Investments Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1126TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Maharaja Engineering and Investments (Pvt.) Ltd. concerns the applicability of exemption Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-86 in respect of scrap, which was generated within the factory of manufacture and the appellants wanted to send them back for processing and return.2. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the records. We find that under their communication dated 25-4-90, the appellants had filed an application for permission to remove inputs or partially processed goods under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules and/or Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-86. We find that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that the Notification No.214/86-C.E. was not applicable. She has not discussed the applicability or non-applicability of the provisions of Rule 57F(2) of the Rules.3. We have gone through the provisions of Notification No. 214/86-C.E.and we consider that while the provisions of this No...
Sng Photo Company Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT476TriDel
1. The subject stay application prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 12,80,990/- demanded as duty for non-production of end use certificate of the imported goods cleared under bond. The adjudicating authority confirmed the aforesaid demand for non-production of the said document despite a final notice dated 14-11-1996. The lower appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the appellants herein before it on the ground of non-deposit of the aforesaid duty pending appeal in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act.2. Learned advocate submits that the end use certificate was submitted as far back as 1992. They did not receive the final notice dated 14-11-1996 at all, as mentioned in the order in original which is nothing but a stereo type of order with certain blanks having been filled. He also submits that soon after the receipt of the order in original through the concerned clearing agent they submitted all the relevant documents immediately vide their letter ...
Mohan MeakIn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT455TriDel
1. Learned Consultant, Shri K.L. Rekhi prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 1,47,141/- demanded as duty on the Article "Kleenmold 170" described by the appellants on the basis of technical literature of the supplier as an across-the-line universal glass mold lubricant. The classification sought for the purposes of countervailing duty by the appellants is under 2710.60. The authorities below have classified the same under TSH 2710.99 as "others". Learned consultant submits that the product has been described clearly in the leaflet as lubricant. It satisfies the definition given for the lubricant oil under TSH 2710.60. He also points out that there is a direct judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Empire Industries reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 426 which classifies the product, glass mold lubricant under TSH 2710.60 and extends the benefit of the Notification No. 112/87, as it then existed. Learned consultant therefore, prays for allowing ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Jagurti Precision Engg.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT806TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the availment of small scale exemption by the respondents, M/s. Jagurti Precision Engg. When they had opted for the scheme of Modvat credit but had not availed of the same. The Revenue sought to deny the benefit of small scale exemption on the ground that the assessee had opted for the Modvat scheme.2. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts on records.3. We find that it was an admitted position that although the assessee had opted for Modvat scheme, no such credit had been actually availed.We, therefore, consider that there was no ground for disallowing the normal benefit of small scale exemption when the assessee was otherwise eligible for the same. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had rightly observed that those manufacturers who opted for Notification No. 175/86-C.E. but not for Modvat scheme, could clear the goods upto the limit of clearance as indicated in the notification for the first c...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Nesha Plast Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT93TriDel
1. The issue involved in this Appeal preferred by Revenue is whether benefit of Notification No. 29/79-Cus. is available in respect of stamping foil.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Respondent. We therefore heard Shri H.K. Jain, ld. SDR, and perused the records. The Respondents have imported stamping foils which were cleared on payment of import duty. Subsequently they filed a refund claim claiming the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 29/79-Cus. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim holding that stamping foil cannot be considered as pigment finishers for leather industry which is the requirement of the Notification. On appeal, Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal relying upon a test report of the Chemical Examiner in which it was stated that stamping foils are used for finishing of leather with pigment.3. Shri H.K. Jain, ld. SDR submitted that pigment finish which is meant for leather, cannot be considered to b...
Birla Jute and Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT47TriDel
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise concerned has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 17,965/- on drawal of samples of cement for testing in the laboratory within the premises of the appellants herein.It has been alleged by the Revenue and found so by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order that the samples drawn were not according to the Notification 171/70-C.E., dated 21-11-1970 inasmuch as the maintenance of records as a condition stipulated in that notification has not been fulfilled by the appellants herein. The Commissioner has relied essentially for this finding on the appellants' letter dated 16-2-1994, a copy of which is on record at page 9 (Annexure 'A').2. We have heard the learned SDR, Shri K. Srivastava in support of the Revenue's case. We have also gone through the appeal memo as also the impugned order. From a perusal of the said letter dated 16-2-1994 the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner cannot be upheld. The said letter states as follows : - "(1) Entry ...
Gujarat State Road Transport Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT41TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn., the only issue for our consideration is, whether retrospective effect under the provisions of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 could be given to Notification No. 279/86-C.E., dated 24-4-1986. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad, had held that the Notification No. 279/86-C.E. prescribing specific rate of duty of Rs. 8,000/- in respect of the body built on the duty paid chassis could not be given restrospective effect from 1-3-1986.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. The matter had come up last on 26-5-1999, when the matter was fixed for today in the presence of the counsel for the appellants. As the matter is very old and relates to the year 1986, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri M.P. Singh, JDR.3. As observed by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that with the introduction of the new Ce...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Sterling India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT807TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the canvas canopy, floor matting and seat covers used as motor vehicle accessories. The Revenue sought to classify them as carpets and floor coverings made of textile material. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, after describing the nature of the goods held that the said articles were not classifiable as floor coverings and were not classifiable under sub-heading No. 5702.90 of the Tariff and had been correctly classified under Heading No. 8708.00 of the Tariff.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents, M/s. Sterling India. Earlier the notice sent to the respondents had been received back undelivered with the postal remarks "LEFT". The notice was sent at the address given in the records. As it is an old matter in which the original order was passed in the year 1990, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri A.K.Jain, JDR.3. We have g...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »