Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 9 of about 221 results (0.018 seconds)Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Steelage Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT600TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification No. 40/95 dated 13-3-1985 is available to the respondents.2. M/s. Steelage Industries Ltd., respondents, have requested under their letter dated 14-12-1991 to decide the matter on merits. We have therefore, heard Shri Jagdish Singh, learned DR, and perused the records. The learned DR submits that Sl. No. 4 of the Notification 40/85 exempts carbon from payment of duty if it is used for any industrial purposes and if such use is elsewhere than in the factory of production, the procedure set out in Chapter X is followed. He submits that the respondents are the manufacturers of gas cylinders; that the respondents were receiving empty gas cylinders from their customers which were sent by them to M/s. Bombay Carbondioxide Corporation, manufacturers of the impugned gas, for filling the cylinders and receiving back the same without payment of duty on gas under Chapter X procedure; that the Assista...
Tag this Judgment!Royal Industries (India) Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)503; 79(1999)DLT369
ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner challenges the rateable value proposed to be fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in respect of his property No. B-90, G.T. Karnal Road, New Delhi and prays that the rateable value be fixed on the basis of costs of land and costs of construction under section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act in accordance with the principles laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapur Vs . N.D.M.C., : [1980]122ITR700(SC) and Dr. Balbir Singh Vs . N.D.M.C. : [1985]152ITR388(SC) . The petitioner has thus sought to set aside the order of respondent No. 2 dated 25th July, 1983 (Annexure G to the petition), the bill dated 10th September, 1983 (Annexure H to the petition) and notice dated 26th March, 1977. 2. The plot under the premises was purchased for a sum of Rs.17,546/- and an amount of Rs.1,14,714 was spent on the construction of the building. Additions were made by the petitioner. The respondents so...
Tag this Judgment!Tex Plast Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT493TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order, dated 23-9-1993 issued on 19-10-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) classifying the product, HDPE woven sacks manufactured by them under sub-heading 3923.90 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various items falling under Chapters 19,54 and 63 of the CETA in their factory. They filed classification list No. 49/91-92 w.e.f. 25-7-1991 in respect of their products on account of the change in duty structure vide Notification No. 53/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991. They classified the disputed product, HDPE woven sacks under sub-heading 6301.00 of the CETA and the same was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 31-8-1991. This order was, however, challenged by the Revenue before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who set aside the same and accepted the review application of ...
Tag this Judgment!Central Pulp Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT642TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Central Pulp Mills Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of concessional rate of duty as per first slab of the Notification No. 138/86-C.E. dated 1-3-1986 is available to the Appellants from the date of opting for the Notification.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Advocate, first mentioned that he may be allowed to withdraw Misc. application No. E/M/8/99-C filed by the appellants. The prayer is allowed and the Misc. application No.E/M/8/99-C is dismissed as withdrawn. The learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants manufacture various types of papers; that they availed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 139/86 during the financial year 1989-90; that they filed a revised classification list No. 2/89-90 effective from 3-10-89 claiming exemption under Notification No. 138/86 in respect of uncoated craft paper in rolls manufactured out of pulp containing not less than 50% by weight or Pulp made from conventional raw material; that the...
Tag this Judgment!ird Mechanalysis (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT601TriDel
1. The lower authorities have denied the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification 175/86 to goods such as vibration Meters, Monitors and Analysers and parts thereof falling under Chapter 90 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 manufactured and cleared by the appellants on the classification list filed in 1990-91, for the reason that the goods bore the brand name "IRD-Mechanalysis" which is a brand name/trade name of a foreign company, M/s. IRD Mechanalysis INC., USA and hence they are hit by Clause 7 of Notification 175/86.2. We have heard Shri M.H. Patil, learned Advocate who contends that the brand names of the American company are "IRD" and "Mechanalysis" and hence use of "IRD Mechanalysis" by the assessees is not use of brand name of another person so as to disentitle the assessees from the benefit of Small Scale exemption and alternatively that IRD Mechanalysis is only a house mark and not a trade name or brand name; and Shri Ashok Kumar, learned DR who reiterates the findings of...
Tag this Judgment!Grasim Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT734TriDel
1. The issue in this case relates to excisability of punched dobby cards of plastics, made in the factory of the appellants herein - according to the Revenue, punched dobby cards of plastic are excisable goods falling for classification under CET Sub-heading 3926.90, not eligible to the benefit of Notification 132/86 as amended by Notification 53/88,14/92 and 15/94-CE., while according to the assessees, the process of punching of duty paid plain plastic dobby cards does not amount to manufacture so as to result in any distinct commercial commodity attracting duty liability. Their alternate submission is that in the event of it being held that the punched plastic dobby cards are excisable goods, then the benefit of the Notifications should be extended to them.Shri Dinesh Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1999 (105) E.L.T. 308, the Tribunal has held that punching of plastic/paper sheets for conversion of the same into dobby cards used by the assessees on looms to obt...
Tag this Judgment!Commandant Embarkation Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT532TriDel
1. In these two Appeals, filed by Commandant, Embarkation Headquarters, Bombay, the issue involved is whether the refund claims filed by them were hit by time limit specified in Section 27 of the Customs Act.2. Shri V.S.R. Krishna, Learned Advocate submitted in Appeal No.C/257/94-B, the goods imported by them were assesed provisionally under the provisions of Section 18 of the Customs which is evident from the Bill of Entry No. 012398 of July 1989; that the B/E was finally assessed on 8-3-90 only; that the Department should have refunded the amount of duty paid in excess suo motu immediately after the finalisation of assessment; that no refund application is required to be preferred by the importer under Section 27 of the Customs Act; that this Section 27 does not come into picture at this stage, that it does so only if, even after adjustment of duty in terms of Section 18(2), the importer considers that a further amount is due to be refunded in which event he has to make a claim as e...
Tag this Judgment!Moosa Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT760TriDel
1. Arguing the Miscellaneous Application, Shri G.K. Rana, ld. Advocate, prays that direction may be given to the authorities below to ensure compliance of the order within two months from the date of issue of this order.2. Ld. Counsel submits that the Tribunal's Final Order Nos.A/47-52/98-NB (DB) dated 27-1-1998 has not been complied with in spite of the fact that a Reference Application on the issue has been rejected by the Tribunal under its Order No. R/50/90-NB (DB), dated 3-7-1998. In spite of the fact that a number of reminders have been issued by the appellant to the authorities for complying with the order, the order has not been complied with. He submits that the order is very clear and should have been complied with within reasonable period, which has not been done. He submits that in similar circumstances this Tribunal in the case of Sahni Export House Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 811, directed the Department to comply with th...
Tag this Judgment!Karan Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT768TriDel
1. We have heard Shri K.S. Chauhan, ld. Counsel on the Miscellaneous Application for restoration of the Appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24-11-1999 on the ground that the notice issued to the appellant was received back with a postal remark that the 'Factory is closed'. Ld. Counsel submits that notice is required to be sent to the Advocate of the appellant and in the instant case, no notice was received by the Advocate for which he has filed an affidavit also. He also submits that since no notice was received by the ld. Counsel as also by the appellant, therefore, there was no question of putting appearance, when the matter was listed. He submits that in these circumstances, the dismissal may be recalled and the Stay Petition may be listed for hearing.2. Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR submits that notice was sent to the appellant as well as to the appellant's Advocate. He submits that notice sent to the appellant was returned by the postal authorities on the ground that the...
Tag this Judgment!Swastika Knitting and Spg. Mills Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT497TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-original dated 9-2-1990 passed by the Collector vide which he had confirmed duty demand of Rs. 2140122.15 and imposed penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs on them.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various types of blended yarn of the composition of wool of 70% and nylon 15% and viscose 15%. They availed the benefit of Notification No. 224/79-C.E., dated 13-7-1979. But on 5-9-1988 their factory premises were searched and certain record was seized. It revealed from that record that during the period September 1983 to July 1988 they had supplied 95427.900 kgs.of woollen worsted yarn to OCF through DCS & D, New Delhi after acceptance of their tender and compliance of the requisite condition.According to the supply orders given to them, the description of the yarn to be supplied by them to OCF through DCS & D was worsted 80 TEX/3/Khaki fo...
Tag this Judgment!