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.
Kay Bee Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT830TriDel
1. Question involved in the present case is regarding admissibility of Modvat credit on iron and steel sheets brought by the appellant herein for the purpose of constructing tanks and moulds. Benefit of the said credit had been denied on the ground that the sheets can neither be considered machine, machinery, plant, equipment, etc. nor they can be considered as components, spares, accessories etc. They are in the nature of raw-materials for the purpose of manufacture of steel tanks and steel moulds.2. I have heard the learned Advocate, Shri Upendra Sharma and the learned JDR, Shri T.A. Arunachalam.3. I agree with the findings of the lower authorities that Modvat credit on the aforesaid goods as "capital goods" cannot be allowed because the raw-material, as aforesaid, has been used for construction/manufacture of MS tanks and MS moulds. These materials do not fall within the definition of "capital goods" under Rule 57Q.Consequently, the benefit of Modvat credit availed by the appellant...
Kohinoor Plastics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC322Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Kohinoor Plastics is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 to a small-scale unit is available from the date of application for registration as SSI unit or from the actual date of grant of such registration.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Appellants. Registry informed that the notice of date of hearing sent to them had been returned by the Postal Authorities. We, therefore, heard Shri V.M. Udhoji, ld. D.R., and perused the records. The facts in brief are that the appellants, manufacturer of HDPE bags, filed a classification list No. 7/87 effective from 9-8-87 claiming benefit of Notification No. 175/86, The classification list was finally approved subject to the condition of production of SSI certificate within 3 months. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Kalyan, under Adjudication Order dated 25-7-91, approved the classification list allowing the exemption under Notification No. 175/86...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Locks and Locking Devices
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT631TriDel
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The notice issued to the respondents was received back with the postal remark "factory closed". Therefore, the appeal is being taken in the absence of the respondents.2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 5-11-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of 'Ignition Switches' and claimed the classification under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents stating therein that the Ignition Switches manufactured by the respondents are classifiable under Tariff Item 61 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. The Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise and vide impugned order, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.3. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar, ...
Rajasthan Spg. and Wvg. Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT659TriDel
(1) In the invoice issued by registered dealer the mention of the mode of transport has not been made and for this reason the appellants herein have been denied the benefit of Modvat credit on the ground that mention of that particular thing is mandatory and it is a vital omission. Consequently the Modvat credit is not admissible. (2) Along with the goods, manufacturer issued an invoice to the appellants supplying the inputs. On the said invoice amount of excise duty was less. Consequently, the supplier of inputs/manufacturer issued another invoice in the name of .the appellants herein and recovered the duty from the appellants. On the basis of the subsequent invoices the appellants have taken the Modvat credit. This Modvat credit had been denied to the appellants on the ground that the appellants have not followed the provisions of Trade Notice in this respect. A certificate ought to have been taken by the appellants from the concerned Range Superintendent having jurisdiction of the ...
Maharashtra Glass and Agro Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT847TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants on the question of availability of exemption under Notification No. 205/88, dated 25-3-1988.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed a CL describing their product as flat plate solar collector (toughened tempered glass).They claimed the benefit of Notification No. 205/88. The department found that the appellants were not actually manufacturing flat plate solar collector but were manufacturing toughened glass sheets and, therefore alleged that they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 205/88. The appellants in reply to the SCN took the plea that they were entitled to the exemption in view of the fact that toughened glass sheets manufactured and cleared by them provided essential characteristic to solar flat plate collector. On careful consideration of the submissions, the Collector confirmed the amount of duty of Rs. 4,74,524.55, confiscated land, plant and machinery etc. and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 45,000...
Bimal Krishna Khanna Vs. Kamal NaIn Khanna and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)881; AIR1999Delhi327; 80(1999)DLT769; 1999(51)DRJ462
ORDERVijender Jain. J.1. Proceedings started in Seventies after a chequered history seems to be drawing close to finality at least in this Court. After a mammoth hearing lasting over couple of months this order will dispose of long standing disputes between the parties which were originally referred in pursuance of the order made by this Court on February 19, 1978 in Suit No. 947/76 to the sole arbitration of late Shri C. K. Daphtary. He published his award on November, 27, 1980. Award along with the proceedings was filed in this Court on December, 16, 1980. Objections were filed by the parties and following issues arose out of the pleadings of the parties, which were framed on April 28, 1982: i) Whether the award requires clarification for providing a partition wall/barbed wire fencing as alleged in para 8 of the application under Section 151 (IA 1402/81) and the award requires clarification in that behalf? OPP (1402/81) ii) Whether the arbitrator has dealt with matters beyond the te...
Garware Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC348Tri(Delhi)
1. These are seven appeals filed by M/s. Garware Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. and six others against a common impugned adjudication order dated 31-7-1991 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Pune.2. Briefly stated the facts are that during the course of conducting the transit checks in MIDC, Satara on 3-2-1988 the Central Excise Officers of Satara intercepted one Rickshaw trailer loaded with 8 packages of Cast Nylon products manufactured by M/s. Nihal Cast Nylon Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as NCNPL). However, the driver produced three delivery challans of M/s. Garware Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as GSPL). The goods were not accompanied with any Central Excise gate pass. This led to search of the factory and office premises of NCNPL, some fully manufactured and allegedly unaccounted goods and documents were seized and statements of Various persons were recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. After issuing show cause notice dated 14-12-1988 to 16 partie...
R.A. Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC359Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed against the confirmation of demand of Rs. 15,75,636.26 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants manufacture portland cement. They were availing exemption under Notfn. No. 175/86, dt. 1-3-86 as amended. The Officers of Central Excise visited the factory premises of the appellants and checked their records. It was observed that the factory came into production during the year 1987-88 with total investment of Rs. 60,19,580/- on plant and machinery; that this investment on plant and machinery was raised further during the years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. It was therefore alleged that the party's declaration on the cost of plant and machinery to be Rs. 34.85 lakhs only was wrong, therefore they were not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption. It was further alleged that the appellants had cleared excisable goods valued at Rs. 1,99,14,408/- during the year 1990-91 and that for the same period they had ...
Hansa Electronics (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT472TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Hansa Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. the matter relates to the manufacture of Central Processing Unit (CPU) without excise licence, removal without payment of Central Excise duty and without complying with the Central Excise formalities. Intelligence was collected that M/s. Hansa Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter referred to M/s. Hansa) were engaged in the manufacture of CPUs and were affixing the same with the brand name v Philips'. Searches and seizure were conducted on 19-4-1989 and offending goods with incriminating records were found in the premises of M/s. Hansa. It was found that out of the import, sufficient CPUs were being manufactured by M/s. Hansa with the help of M/s. Byte Micro Systems and the goods were supplied to M/s. Nelco Electronics and Electricals Ltd. who supplied the goods further to M/s. Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. who were the owner of the brand name of 'Philips'. In the statements the concerned persons with the activiti...
Cymox Time Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Air)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT677TriDel
1. The appellant herein imported a consignment stated to contain plastic cases for Alarm Time Pieces, dials and bends valid at Rs. 3,51,962/-. They filed a Bill of Entry on 8.4.96 for their clearances.2. The goods were examined on first check basis. On examination, it was found that the plastic cases of alarm cases were nothing but clock cases in CKD condition. It was observed that clock cases in CKD condition and dials were restricted for import as per the provisions of the current EXIM Policy and they could not be imported except against a specific licence. Since the appellants were not having any licence for clearance of the subject goods, it was alleged by the Deptt. that they would be liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. A penalty was also proposed against them under Section 112 (a) of the said Act. The appellants waived from issuance of show cause notice and a personal hearing was granted on 30-4-1996. It was urged by the appellants in the cours...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »