Delhi Court May 2000 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.
Shree Prestress Concrete Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT109TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) bearing No.503/CE/MRT/94 vide which he had confirmed the order in original dated 4-5-1994 of Assistant Collector denying the benefit of Notification No.59/90 on FCC beams to them.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement concrete poles and cement concrete beams falling under sub-heading 6807.00 of the CETA. They claimed classification of the cement concrete beams under S. No. 8 of the Table annexed to the Exemption Notification No.59/90 dated 20-3-90, as amended, but the same was not accepted by the Assistant collector by holding that they were not manufacturer of prefabricated buildings and also did not declare in their classification list or otherwise, that the beams manufactured by them were used as components of prefabricated buildings. He, accordingly, modified the classification list to S. No. 4 of the Table annexed to that Notification...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sunflame Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC323
1. The controversy in the present appeal centres round the question as to whether the product in question known as 'Sunflame Electric Coil Stove' is covered under S. No. 5(a)(x) or 5(d) of the Notification No.160/86, dated 1-3-1986 for the purposes of excise duty.2. The respondents are manufacturer of the product, Sunflame Electric Coil Stove, falling under sub-heading 8516.00 of the CETA. They had claimed the benefit under Notification No. 160/86 on the ground that the same are covered by its residuary entry 5(d) under the caption (domestic electrical appliance) which provides nil rate of duty. In their classification list also they accordingly claimed duty exemption on that ground.3. On the other hand, the stand taken up by the Revenue is that the product, 'electric coil stove' is covered by S. No. 5(a)(x) of the Table annexed to Notification No. 160/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 and attracts 20% BED + 15% SED as mentioned therein.4. The Assistant Collector rejected the contention of the ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mega Quilts Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT497TriDel
1. The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of Quilts and Quilted items out of quilted fabrics. The manufacturing process is as under; (i) The pieces of duty paid cloth (cotton, polyester, polyester cotton blend or viscose cloth) and one piece of cotton/polyester duty paid wadding are fed to the machine in a manner that top and bottom layers will be fabric and central layer will be wadding. (ii) This mass of cloth and wadding is stitched by the needles and threads of the Quilting machines and thereby a sandwich of clothes and wadding in between is formed. This sandwich material (Quilts in roll form; the product of the Quilting machine) is rolled on a spool. (iii) Subsequently, this Quilt fabrics in roll form is taken out from the Quilting machine and cut into pieces. These pieces are then checked and mended for faulty stitching like floats, missing threads etc. After mending these cut pieces of quilts, bedspreads etc. If it is required, tailors attach frill on the edges t...
Pratap Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT435TriDel
1. The present appeal is against the order dated 29-4-1999 of the Commissioner (Appeals), which was passed in an appeal filed by the party against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 28-5-1998. The appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order was filed by the party before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 15-1-1999. In that appeal, the appellants had stated that the Assistant Commissioner's order had been received some time after 23-7-1998. If the period taken by the party for filing the appeal is computed on this basis, the appeal was filed after expiry of the statutory period of three months from the date of receipt of the Assistant Commissioner's order. The appellants had not filed any separate application for condonation of delay. They had, however, stated against Sl. No. 4 in their memo of appeal that their factory was lying closed for a year and half and, for this reason, they could not file the appeal earlier. This statement in the memo of appeal was taken by the...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shama Engine Valves Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT508TriDel
1. Revenue is in appeal. Short facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows : Various price lists were submitted by the manufacturer for approval by the Department. Those price lists were approved with the direction to include inspection charges as well to the assessable value of the goods manufactured. The manufacturer took up the decision of the adjudicating authority in appeal. Appellate authority by order, dated 28-3-1994 agreed with the adjudicating authority and upheld the order stating that inspection charges incurred by the manufacturer should also form part or assessable value of the goods manufactured. The manufacturer took up the matter in appeal before this Tribunal. By Final Order No. 930/98-A, dated 7-7-1998 this Tribunal upheld the contention of the manufacturer and found that inspection charges cannot be added to the assessable value of the goods manufactured. Since duty was being paid reckoning inspection charges as well, the manufacturer filed applicatio...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tarai Foods
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC342
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27-10-1998 vide which he had reversed the order in original dated 24-10-97 of Assistant Commissioner confirming the duty demand of Rs. 4,26,685.96 against the respondents by classifying their product under sub-heading 2001.10 of the CETA.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may briefly be stated as under: 3. The respondents M/s. Tarai Foods Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of vegetable preparation i.e. French Fries and Frozen foods. They had been using two types of packings for the sale of their product. First packing carried the name "Inland Valley" alongwith other details while the second packing bore all other details except the words "Inland Valley". They classified their first packing under sub-heading No.2001.10 and cleared the same from the factory by paying duty at the rate of 8% as prescribed in that sub-heading. But the second packing had been classified b...
Collector of Customs (P) Vs. Manoj Construction Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC467
1. The issues involved in this appeal preferred by Revenue are whether the date of determination of rate of duty shall be the date of landing of goods in India or the date on which the Bill of Entry is presented and whether the value of Second hand machinery imported was to be arrived at after deducting depreciation as per Income Tax Act.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents M/s. Manoj Constructions Company nor there was any request for adjournment of the hearing. We observe that the matter is coming on board since September 1999 and no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondents. However, we notice that they had filed cross objections.Accordingly we proceed with the hearing of the matter in absence of the Respondents.3. Shri M.C. Sharma, Learned C.D.R., mentioned that the Respondents had submitted in Cross Objection that the Appeal filed by the Department is time barred as the impugned Order is dated 29-12-1993 and the appeal was filed in Se...
Nippon Audiotronix Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC308
1. These appeals are at the instance of M/s. Nippon Audiotronix Ltd. and by Shri K.S. Goindi, Managing Director. M/s. Nippon Audiotronix Ltd. is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act.They imported 51 consignments of Kenwood Car Cassette Player components. 48 consignments landed in Mumbai and 3 in New Delhi. These imports were from M/s. Future Electronics, Tokyo. As and when the consignments reached Mumbai or New Delhi, as the case may be, Bills of Entry were filed. On the basis of the value shown therein duty was paid and goods were accordingly cleared. Subsequently show cause notice was issued on 17-3-1999 alleging undervaluation. As per the show cause notice a sum of Rs. 81,49,643 was claimed as customs duty evaded by mis-declaration and suppression of value of the goods imported.They were also asked to explain why penalty under section 114A should not be levied and why interest on account of delayed payment be not realised invoking the provisions contained in ...
T. Maneklal Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT717TriDel
1. The issue in dispute in this case is the classification of products such as Sanforizing Endless rubber belts, Flat endless rubber belts and endless printing rubber blankets - whether under Chapter Heading 84.51 (first two products) and 84.43 (third product), as parts of textile machinery as claimed by the assessee or under CET Subheading 4016.99 as upheld by the Revenue authorities. Notice issued to the appellants at the address given in the appeal memorandum for today's hearing has been returned undelivered; hence we heard the learned DR and perused the records.2. There is no dispute that all the three products are manufactured from unhardened vulcanised rubber. Therefore, they are excluded from the coverage of Chapter 84 in view of Note 1(a) to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff which states that this Section does not cover transmission or conveyor belts or belting of plastics of Chapter 39 or of vulcanised rubber (Heading 40.10) or other articles of a kind used in machiner...
Sudhir Pawaskar Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT94; 2000(54)DRJ172
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner is a proprietor of Avon Guest House located at C-43, South Extension-II, New Delhi. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.1997, passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, cancelling the license of the petitioner to run the Guest House. Petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of Dy. Commissioner of Police before the Lt. Governor, which was also dismissed by the Lt. Governor, vide a speaking order dated 16.9.1998. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to urge that the impugned orders dated 19.7.1997 and 16.9.1998 are not sustainable. He submits that the orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly, that the orders proceed on grounds which are extraneous to those set out in the show cause notices issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the impugned orders are the result of mala fide action of the police, at the behest of his business rival, who is determined to ruin t...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »