Delhi Court August 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.
Harindra Industrial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT460TriDel
1. In this case the issue is in respect of classification of wiring harness.3.The Appellant claimed the classification of wiring harness under sub-heading 8708.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act and Revenue classified the same under Heading 8544.00 of Central Excise Tariff. We find that issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shakun Products v. Collector of Central Excise 184. In that case the Tribunal held wiring harness is classifiable under Heading 8544.00 of the Central Exelse Tariff Act. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly appeal is hereby rejected....
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Incon Industrial Contracts Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT191TriDel
1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 27.01.2000. In the impugned Order the Commissioner (Appeals), after following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas Engineering Associates v. CCE, Allahabad reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 219, held that the Bus Ducts and Bus Bars Chambers are classifiable under subheading 85.37 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri Ashok Kumar, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. KLK Electricals Industries reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 490 (T) has held that the Bus Ducts are classifiable under Heading 8544.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. His contention is that Bus Ducts are accessory to electrical power equipments and it provides connections between the generator on one end and switchgear on the other. Therefore, these types of bus ducts are classifiable under Heading 8544.00.3. Shri Ram Chandra Choudhary, the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the ...
Wipro Ge Medical Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT810TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd., Bangalore, the matter relates to the duty liability in respect of the parts and accessories of medical equipment. The medical equipment as such was covered by the Notification No. 116/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988, as amended, but the parts and accessories were not so covered. The differential duty of Rs. 4,421/- was demanded and confirmed. The plea taken by the appellants was that their classification list had been approved and the demand could not be made for the past period. The goods had been cleared on 26-2-1993, while the show cause notice had been issued on 29-7-1993 within the normal period of limitation.2. The appellants have prayed for transfer of their case to South Zonal Bench, Chennai. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and the amount of differential duty involved (Rs. 4,421/-), we reject the request and proceed to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri S.N. Singh, SDR.3. We find that under Notific...
Dossa Harjee and Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT126TriDel
1. These four appeals are directed against Order-in-Original dated 22-1-1993 of the Collector of Central Excise.2. The appellants in Appeal No. E/4413/93-D are manufacturers of cotton yarn, man-made yarn and cotton/man-made fabrics falling under Chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.The appellant in Appeal No. E/4425/93-D is the Executive Director of the above company. The appellants in Appeal Nos. E/4374 & 4375/93-D are purchasers of the goods in question from the above manufacturing company.3. The principal issue involved in these appeals is whether the product of M/s. Simplex Mills Company Limited (Appellants in E/4413/93-D), which was described by them as "filter cloth" prior to May, 1989 and as "grey coarse canvas" thereafter, is classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.09 as claimed by the Department or under Chapter Heading 52.05 as claimed by the assessees.4. M/s. Simplex Mills cleared certain quantity of the product during the period 1...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Anand Re-rolling Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT805TriDel
1. Revenue has filed the captioned application requesting for a reference to the Hontle High Court of M.P. stating that the following point of law arises out of the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/32/98-NB dated 16-1-98 :- "Whether deemed credit benefit extended under Government of India's Order No. TS/36/94-TRU dated 1-3-94 could be availed by a unit, who has availed graded/slabed rate of duty based on aggregate value of clearances provided under Notification No. 1/93-CX (upto a value of Rs. 75 lakhs), when they commence payment of duty at 15% Adv. the Tariff rate provided under the Tariff, after exhausting the limit of Rs. 75 lakhs provided for concessional rate of duty. It is because once unit pays duty at Tariff rate, it can no longer be considered that they are availing exemption/concessional rate under Notification No. 1/93-CX".2. The facts of the case in brief are that the authorities below held that Modvat credit will not be admissible to a unit enjoying the benefit of Notificati...
Salt Movement and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ690
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner Society has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the decision of the State of Kerala to lease out a portion of Travancore House, New Delhi to a Private Television Channel Company, namely, M/s. Malyalam Communications Pvt. Ltd. Petitioners inter alias seek of writ of mandamus to the respondents, to provide facilities like reading room, library, public relations office etc. located at the Travancore House. 2. Petitioners claim to be an Association/forum for social, economic, cultural and intellectual uplift and welfare of one million Carnalities stated to be living in Delhi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Association, Mr. Mathews, has urged before me that the respondents in taking a decision to lease the premises to M/s. Malayalam Communication Ltd., running a Malyalam TV Channel, has belied the just and legitimate aspirations of a million Keralities in Delhi of having reading room, library and a cultural centre in the premises. Lea...
Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Kothari Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT800TriDel
1. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order in para 13 held as under: "13. From all the three situations as discussed above, it is seen that none of the cases, the appellants have to pay the duty twice. Since in the instant case, the appellants have chosen to opt the procedure under Rule 173H, therefore, as discussed in paras 8&9 above they are not liable to pay the duty on the impugned order".2. Arguing the case for Revenue Shri R.D. Negi, Ld. DR submits that the appellants had received certain quantities of Pan Masala Bag. He submits that they process this pan masala by mixing with fresh Pan Masala cleared the same without payment of duty. He submits that the process undertaken by the appellant was a process of manufacture and therefore, at the time of clearance of the goods, the respondents herein should have paid duty. He submits that since repacking was done in this case and repacking amounts to manufacture, therefore, the appellants should have paid duty. He submits ...
Dow Chemicals Pacific Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT817TriDel
1. Appellant has moved this application to amend the Memo, of Appeal.As per this amendment they want to raise a ground questioning the correctness of the decision taken by the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Finance in issuing Notification dated 11-4-2000.2. Heard learned Counsels appearing on either side. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we see that the amendment sought for has only to be allowed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India - 2000 (118) E.L.T.305 (S.C.). Shri Vellapally, learned Counsel, representing the Union of India, Ministry of Commerce wants time for getting instructions on additional ground raised in the Memo, of Appeal by virtue of our order allowing the prayer in the miscellaneous application. Case adjourned to 18-9-2000....
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ceat Tyres of India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT130TriDel
1. Shri Ravinder Narain, Id. Counsel submits that a mistake has crept in the Misc. Order No. 15/2000-C dt. 28.01.2000. He refers to the order and submits that it was admitted that the issues of limitation and methodology of calculation though discussed and brought to the notice of the original bench yet no order was passed by the original bench. He submits that thus the formulation of the points to be referred to the third member was wrong inasmuch as the question of limitation and methodology was not considered and decided by the original bench of two members. Ld. Counsel, therefore, submits that the matter should go to a Bench of two members to decide the issue of limitation and methodology of calculation of quantum of duty. He submits that once that position is decided by the Bench to be constituted after that the question to be referred to the third member may be reformulated. He, therefore, prays that the ROM may be allowed.2. Shri S.P. Rao, Id. DR appearing for the appellant Com...
M.M. Sintered Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT173TriDel
1. In these two appeals, arising out of a Common Order dated 31-10-1988 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), the issue involved is whether the Iron and copper sintered bushes, manufactured by the Appellants, M/s. M.M. Sintered Products, are classifiable under Sub-heading 7308.90 and 7413.90, as claimed by them or under sub-heading 84.83 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as decided by the Collector (Appeals).2. Shri Jitendra Singh, Ld Advocate, submitted that the classification list No. 18/86 effective from 1-3-86, C.L. No. 26/86, effective from 1-4-86 and C.L. No. 42/86, effective from 2-4-86 were approved on 20-8-86 and 20-4-87; that Collector reviewed these classification lists right from 20-8-86; that the Review Order passed by the Collector under Section 35 E (2) of the Central Excise Act does not bear any Number and date or the date of Communication of the Order to the Assistant Collector which is the requirement of the law to ascertain the limitatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »