Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 16 of about 321 results (0.021 seconds)Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. J.B. Mangharam Food Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC730Tri(Delhi)
1. Question involved in this appeal is regarding classification of "floor sweeping and damaged biscuits (under - baked over - baked)".Revenue contends that the product is classifiable under Tariff Heading 23.01, as held by the original authority, namely, the Assistant Collector of Customs. Assessee-respondent, on the other hand, contends that the aforesaid product is not excisable. Lower appellate authority has accepted the contention of the assessee-respondent herein. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.2. It may be mentioned at this stage that initially the show cause notice on filing of classification list by the respondent herein was issued by the Revenue to the said respondent to show cause as to why the said product be not classified under Tariff Heading 1905.11.However, on examination of the product after studying the process of manufacture, the Assistant Collector dropped the proposed classification under sub-heading 1905.11. He came to the conclusion that the correct classificat...
Tag this Judgment!Bonanzo Engineering and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(89)LC113Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in the present appeal filed by M/s. Bonanzo Engineering & Chemicals P. Ltd. is whether the impugned product manufactured by them is classifiable under sub heading 3214.00 as claimed by them or under sub heading 3200.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as approved by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).2. Shri Rajendra Dutt, Ld. Advocate submitted that the appellants had filed a classification list effective from 2.4.1993 in which impugned product at serial No. 9 was described as Paints and varnishes, classifiable under sub Heading No. 3209.90 of C.E.T.A.; that again on 21.4.1993, they filed a revised Classification List in which the impugned product was described as 'non-refractory' preparations for facades and inside walls falling under sub heading 3214.00. The Assistant Collector, under order dt. 13.12.1993, classified the product under sub heading 3209.90, relying upon the report of the Chemical Examiner and imp...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC690
1. The appellant M/s. Universal Glass Ltd. is a Division of Jagatjit Industries Ltd. They manufacture glass bottles and jars at their factory at Sahibabad, Meerut and about 50% of their production is captively consumed by Jagatjit Industries, Kapurthala in the packing of goods manufactured by them and the remaining are sold to industrial consumers, Dabar India Ltd., Pure Drinks, Pepsico Foods Ltd., Coca Cola, Punjab Breweries etc. and a small portion to others. The issue involved in the present appeal is the valuation of bottles utilised by Jagatjit Industries. Originally these goods had discharged duty based on the value of comparable goods manufactured and sold by the appellants.2. The impugned order has demanded differential duty on the ground that value was required to be fixed under Rule 4 (b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules based on the cost of manufacture and manufacturing profit, while the appellant's contend that the valuation originally done at the value of comparable ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Flex Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT425TriDel
1. In these cases, the respondents claimed benefit on capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on electrical items such as PVC cables, spare parts of control panels of multi-layer blow plant, switches, temperature controls, etc. used in the manufacture of their final product namely polyester film and also claimed capital goods credit on components of FRC cooling pump. Credit on all these items was denied by the Adjudicating authority. The assessees agitated denial of credit on all the electrical items before the Commissioner (Appeals) who following the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Nova Udyog reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 532 held that the items are eligible to the credit under Rule 57Q. Hence these appeals by the Revenue.2. On hearing both the sides, I find that eligibility to capital goods credit on electrical items such as cables has already been accepted by the decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Jawaha...
Tag this Judgment!Natson Laminates Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC116Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Natson Laminates is whether the benefit of Notification No. 82/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 is available to laminated fabrics manufactured by them.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants manufacture laminated fabrics falling under sub-heading 5903.19 and 5903.29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and claimed exemption under Notification No. 82/88. Sl x show cause notices were issued to them for denying the benefit of the notification on the ground that they were using base fabrics other than the fabrics falling under Chapter 52, 54 or 55 of C.E.T.A. The Assistant Collector, under order dated 17-5-1991, approved the classification lists allowing the benefit of notification, holding that the intention of the Government was to recover duty if not already paid on base fabrics used for lamination purposes and not that the base fabrics should be of specific Chapter; that the Notification did not carry any condition that...
Tag this Judgment!Goyal Impex and Industries Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC694
1. Appellant is an importer of Acrylic Staple Fibre. They imported a consignment of 19391.300 kgs. of above substance from M/s. Fisipe Fibras Sinteticas De Portugal SA. This was covered by Invoice No.ME/98002001/98 dated 16.2.98 and Bill of Lading dated 31.10.97. The goods were invoiced at U.S.$ 1.200 per kg. GIF Mumbai. The Total value declared for the consignment was US $ 23509.56 (Rs. 9,16,873) CIF.Objection was raised by the Appraiser CIF, Ludhiana stating that the value declared is low and that idential goods were assessed and cleared at US $ 1.75 per kg. CIF against Bill of Lading dated 10.10.97. On the basis of this objection notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why duty should not be levied on the total value calculated at U S $ 1.75 per kg. on the total quantity cleared. Importer, namely the appellant filed his written objection and documents, to support his stand. They were heard on the issue. Thereupon the Commissioner held that the price of the goods imported w...
Tag this Judgment!Karl Storz Endoscopy India (Pvt.) Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC813Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Ltd. is whether Cold Light Fountain imported by them is exempted wholly from payment of Customs Duty as per Serial 249 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 23/98-Cus. dt. 2.6.1998.2. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs denied the benefit of Sl. No.249 of Notification No. 23/98-Cus. to cold light fountain holding that the product manual/literature no where specified that the impugned goods was meant for Tubal occlusion; that as per manual, the cold light fountain was usable in all endoscopic intervention and whereas the benefit under serial No. 249 is only for equipments which are meant for tubal occlusion. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also denied the benefit of Serial No. 249 of Notification No. 23/98 as the light source had been proved as accessory of endoscopes and not laproscopes or specifically for tublar occlusion; that Notification has given a general entry as endoscope and its accesso...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dyna Vision Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC127Tri(Delhi)
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 31-5-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise held that the product 'radio cassette recorder' manufactured by the respondents is covered at Sl. No. 14 of the Notification No. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989.2. Ld. DR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that the radio cassette recorder, manufactured by the respondents, is covered at Sl.No. 1 of the Notification No. 87/89, dated 1-3-1989 and not at Sl. No.14 as held by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). He submits that tine description at Sl. No. 1 of the notification included goods falling under Chapter Heading 8527 of the Central Excise Tariff. He submits that the Collector of Central Excise has not interpreted the exclusion clause provided under Sl. No. 14 of the Notification correctly. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.4. In this case, the issue is whether the product 'radio ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan Ali Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)160; 81(1999)DLT194; 1999(50)DRJ858; 2000(69)ECC580
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by Rajan Ali is directed against the judgment dated 3rd April 1993 convicting him under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') and also the order dated 8th April 1993 sentencing him to undergo RI for 10 years and pay fine of Rs. one lac, passed by an Additional Session Judge. In default of payment of fine appellant was further to undergo RI for two years.2. Case of the prosecution as borne out from the chargesheet filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is that SHO Dharam Pal Singh, PW-5 had information that some persons from UP supply opium in the jhuggies at Majnu-ka-tila and from there it was sold in retail to the drivers who park the trucks and buses in the nearby parking. ASI Bakhtawar Singh,PW-6 and Constable Hari Singh were deputed by PW-5 to develop and verify the said information. On 28th January 1989 on receipt of information from an informer by PW-5 that a person having opium would come to the jhuggies, a ...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Rai and Sons Vs. Delhi Cantonment Board and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)134
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an arbitration petition, on behalf of the petitioner, under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking a direction to the respondents to file the original of Arbitration Agreement in this Court & also an Order of reference of the disputes/claims enumerated in Para 7 of the petition for arbitration. 2. The petitioner is one of the partners of the firm/Ms. Daulat Rai & Sons, having General Power of Attorney (AnnexureI at Pages 10-13 of the paperbook) on behalf of the firm. 3. The petitioner entered into contract on 10.6.1992 for provision of Central Sewerage Scheme in existing village Naraina, Delhi Cantt. 4. Clause 70 of the contract Agreement provided for the arbitration and reads as follows : '70. Arbitration All disputes, between the parties to the Contract (other than those for which the decision of the C.W.E. or any other person is by the Contract expressed to be final and binding) shall, after written noti...
Tag this Judgment!