Delhi Court January 1994 Judgments

Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Vs. Collector C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT86TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Wadding, Bandages and Gauze. The Assistant Collector classified these goods under Heading 30.04 and confirmed the demand raised in the Show Cause Notice dated 28-8-1986 rejecting the claim of the appellants for the classification of the subject goods under Heading 30.03. Against that Order of the Assistant Collector the appellants filed the appeal before the Collector (Appeals), but without success. Hence the present appeal.3. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants moved the captioned Misc. Application for raising an additional ground to the effect that the activity undertaken by the appellants with respect to the subject goods cannot amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and, therefore...

Dugar Electronics Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT462TriDel

1. M/s. Dugar Electronics (hereinafter referred to as 'Dugar'), and M/s. Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Peico') have filed the present appeals against the order No.26/Electric goods/Collector/CE/Cal. 11/1987, dated 9-6-1987, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II, Calcutta.2. Both the appeals arise out of a common order, were heard together, and are being disposed of by this common order.3. It was alleged in the show cause notice, dated 10-3-1986 that both Dugar and Peico had suppressed vital facts for deciding the normal price of the tape recorders manufactured by Dugar on behalf of Peico, and supplied to Peico, at suppressed prices, without taking into consideration the various factors, that build up the cost of production, and whose cost was borne by Peico. Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 40,56,907.12 was demanded in the show cause notice.4. The Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta-II, in his Order-in-Original dated 9-6-1987,...

Quadromatic Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC384Tri(Delhi)

1. In all these matters, common question of facts and law are involved.Hence, they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Wound Stators and Rotors of various sizes and which are sold to M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (KBL) for the manufacture of 'Hermetically Sealed Compressors'.2. Appeal No. E/913-91/B1 pertaining to Quadromatic Engg. Pvt. Ltd. arises from the order-in- appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) Pune. In all these appeals the question that arises for consideration is with regard to the correct classification of Stators and Rotors. The appellants had filed Classification List describing these goods as 'parts suitable for use solely or principally for electric motors falling under Heading 86.01' and the appellants had further added 'for Hermetically Sealed Compressors'. The Department had issued show cause notices to the individual appellants calling upon them to show cause as to why their goods namely stators and ro...

Cable Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(53)LC392Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an Appeal against the Order dt. 5.3.1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II. The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Electric Wires and Cables falling under Item 33B of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The Asstt. Collector issued Show Cause Notice alleging that the Appellants had contravened various provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules during the period 1.5.1983 to 23.9.1989 by manufacturing and removing without filing any classification list and without' payment of duty, 52,622 kgs. of bare copper wires of thickness over 14 SWG and thicker, valued at Rs. 27,36,344/- and 4,592 kgs. of bare aluminium wires of thickness 10 SWG and thicker valued at Rs. 1,07,544.64 falling under Item 33B(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Appellants were required to Show Cause as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,87,316.12 on 52,622 kgs. of bare copper wire of thickness 14 SWG and thicker and Rs. 11,292.18 on 4,592 kgs. of bare aluminium ...

Prashant Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(77)ELT844(Del)

1. Petitioner No. 1 a private limited company carries on the business of trading and manufacturing of silk cloth at Varanasi. Petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of petitioner No. 1 Company. For the purposes of this business, the petitioners import raw silk from the overseas market. 2. The respondents published the Import and Export policy for the period April 1990 to March 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 1990 Policy) under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Under the 1990 Policy REP licenses/Exim Scrips were issued against export of products. Under the 1990 Policy all goods save and except goods falling under prohibitive list were allowed to be imported against REP licenses/exim scrip. Silk was mentioned in [Appendix] 5 Part A and the same was allowed to be imported on REP licenses/Exim Scrip. REP licenses/Exim Scrip are transferable in the market and can be purchased and or sold in the open market. The petitioners purchased REP licenses/Exim Scrip fo...

indodan Milk Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(1)ARBLR289(Delhi)

Mr. Sat Pal, J.1. S. No. 111A/86 is a petition filed by M/s. Indodan Milk Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) under Section 14 and of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and in this petition it has been prayed that the respondent No. 2 who was the Arbitrator be directed to file the award dated 16th December, 1985 Along with the proceedings and award be made rule of the court. 2. S. No. 82A/86 is the petition filed on behalf of the UOI under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and in this petition it was prayed that the Arbitrator be directed to file award Along with arbitration proceedings and thereafter petitioner be given an opportunity to challenge the same in accordance with law. Since both the petitions pertain to the same award, I am disposing of both these petitions by this common order. 3. On 22nd August, 1986 the following issues were framed : (i) Whether the Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings as alleged (ii) Whether the award of the Arb...

Sanjay Sanadhya and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 54(1994)DLT126

Mr V.B. Bansal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Dr. Sanjay Sandhya and his parents, praying for quashing of the F.I.R. No. 10 of 1994, recorded at Police Station Trilok Puri, Delhi against them, under Sections 406, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC, at the instance of Dr. (Ms.) Sucheta Sanadhya.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner No. 1 was married to Dr. (Ms.) Sucheta Sanadhya, respondent No. 2 on 19.7.1991, Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 1. On account of differences, Dr. (Ms.) Sucheta Sanadhya, respondent No. 2 made a complaint against the petitioners, on the basis of which, F.I.R. No. 10 of 1994 was registered in P.S. Trilok Puri, Delhi, in which, Dr. Sanjay Sanadhya and his parents have been imp leaded as accused. The matter is still under investigation.3. At the intervention of family friends and others, the parties have entered into a compromise and the p...

C.L. Raizada Vs. the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member: 1. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Maruti 1000 CC Car from M/s. Competent Motors, New Delhi on 15.5.92. He got the car insured with the respondents Insurance Company under Third Party Risk for a period of six months w.e.f. 14.5.92. The respondent-Company thereafter issued the insurance certificate No. 0507083. The said car was purchased under Taxi Quota and was assigned registration No. DH-1Y- 0643. However, the said car could not be used as a taxi due to non-availability of a competent and reliable driver and the complainant therefore continued to use it for his personal conveyance. The complainant possessed a valid and a proper driving licence, for driving the car. During the period the car was under insurance as Third Party Risk the complainant got it converted into a comprehensive policy on 17.8.92 by paying a premium of Rs. 13,190/- and the respondent in consideration of this payment issued a fresh policy certificate...

P.G. Conductors Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT336TriDel

1. M/s. P. G. Conductors have filed this appeal against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order confirmed the order of the Asstt. Collector and rejected the appeal.The Asstt. Collector in his order held "In view of the above discussion and findings, I order that the credit of Rs. 60,389.58 availed in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of undeclared final product - Bare Aluminium Wire of thickness 3.25 mm or more should be debited under Rule 57-I in RG-23A Pt. II or in PLA within 10 days of the receipt of this order." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a declaration under Rule 57G on 14-3-1986 in which they did not declare bare aluminium wire of thickness 3.25 mm or more as their final product. However they availed a credit of Rs. 60,389.58 on 22.471 MTs of inputs namely aluminium wire rods. As the appellant could not satisfactorily explain, a Show Cause Notice was issued to him. In reply to the Show Cau...

Saidex Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(52)LC161Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants is an SSI unit manufacturing starch falling under T.I. 15C of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Prior to 1.3.1986, they were availing of the benefit of exemption to small scale industries under Notification No. 85/85-CE dated 17.3.1985. The said Notification was superseded and replaced by Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986. The appellants were required to pay duty on their clearances during the month of March 1986 at the rates prescribed under the said Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986. The operation of Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986 was suspended during the period 25.3.1986 to 31.3.1986 by Notification No. 202/86-CE dated 25.3.1986.2. The Notification No. 212/86-CE dated 25.3.1986 was issued in respect of the period 25.3.1986 to 31.3.1986. The rates prescribed under Notification No. 212/86-CE dated 25.3.1986 were equal to the rates prevalent prior to 1.3.1986 under Notification No. 85/85-CE dated 17.3.1985. Both these Notifications fully exe...