Delhi Court October 1994 Judgments

Supreme Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC236Tri(Delhi)

1. This is a condonation of delay application filed with reference to the appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.2. Learned Counsel stated that the above appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 28-9-1987.3. A copy of this order was received by them on 17-12-1987 however, since it was not a certified copy they had applied for the same and the said certified copy was received only on 11-10-1988.4. The appellants subsequently filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 13-11-1988.5. It was their submission that according to the CEGAT procedure rules and the preamble in the Order-in-Appeal an appeal was required to be filed along with certified copy of the impugned order.6. Therefore, it was their belief that a certified copy had to be applied for and obtained and then only an appeal could be filed along with it.7. It was their submission that they were guided by the preamble to Order-in-Appeal in this regard.8. It was their contention that even other...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Leader Engg. Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC501Tri(Delhi)

1. This Reference Application by Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh seeks reference on the following question of law for authoritative opinion of the Hon'ble High Court :- "Whether Foundry Fluxes and other chemicals used for manufacture of valves and corks are eligible of Modvat credit." Tribunal in its order No. A/61 /94-NRB in case of CCE, Chandigarh v.Leader Engineering Works held that Foundry fluxes used in valves moulds which subsequently was used up during manufacture of finished products are eligible inputs for the purpose of availing modvat credit.W.S. Industries (India) Ltd. v. CCE 1991 (56) E.L.T. 267 (Tribunal), Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CCE 1990 (50) E.L.T. 175 (Tri) and Shivaji Works Ltd. v. CCE 1990 (50) E.L.T. 50 (Tri).3. Ld. DR submitted that the Foundry fluxes and chemicals are used in the manufacture of moulds which by themselves are tools. The functions of these tools is to hold molten metal. These moulds get broken when they are allowed to cool down, the cast b...

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT691TriDel

1. M/s. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. have filed this appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals) on the ground that the goods imported by the appellant were correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 8207.30 and not under Customs Tariff Heading No. 9806.00.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Fans. They have a fresh Laminations Division for the purposes of manufacturing of Lamination of various types and designes required for fan motors. The Laminations are made from Silicon Steel Strip/Rolls. The Strip/Rolls are fed in a Press on which progressive steel die as per design of the Lamination required is fitted and punched. According to the appellants the die can be mounted on any Lamination Press and is specifically made as per a particular lamination drawing and for different type/design of lamination different dies are required. The appellant imported a consignment of progressive Steel Dies with Design and Development a...

Shyam Antenna Electronic (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC497Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 5-1-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi. The brief facts are that the appellants, herein, imported 500 pieces of Low Noise Black Down Converters against an invoice dated 3-9-1993 from the Unico Electronics, Hong Kong. A Bill of Entry was presented for the clearance on 14-9-1993 at the Air Cargo Unit, New Delhi. The value of the goods was declared in the Bill of Entry at US $ 25.10 per piece CIF. On examination, the Department found that the manufacturer of the goods is M/s. Gardiner of U.S.A. The Department was of the view that the value declared was low as compared to similar imports by others and also noted that the goods have been imported from or through a trader, namely, M/s. Unico Electronics, Hong Kong and not from the manufacturer, who in this case is M/s. Gardiner of U.S.A. The Department, therefore, asked the appellants to produce manufacturer's invoice. In the absence of such an invoice, the Department held t...

P and B Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT616TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26-9-1991 issued on 21-10-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad. The appellants herein manufacturer of Patent or Proprietary medicines falling under Tariff Item 14E prior to 1-3-1986 and thereafter under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed classification and price lists claiming exemption under Notification No. 175/86 as a Small Scale Industries Unit. The Department found that they were affixing a brand name and logo (P/B) which is also the brand name used by one M/s. P & B Laboratories of Bombay who are themselves not eligible for benefit under Notification No. 175/86 as amended by Notification No. 223/87. Another point according to the Department is that the appellants were selling their product Patent or Proprietary medicines to M/s. Pharma Chem Distributors of Bombay with a large price difference as between the assessable value declared by the appellants and the selling pr...

Shobha Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)52ITD188(Delhi)

1. We find it convenient to dispose of these four appeals of the assessee relating to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 by this consolidated order. Two appeals relate to the quantum and two relate to the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. We shall first deal with the quantum appeals.2. Common issue involved in these appeals is relating to allowance of interest as a deduction in computing the income from business.3. The appellant is a company. It's first previous year ended on 30th June, 1981. It has purchased a house property which was partly let out to tenants even at the time of the purchase by the assessee-company.Part of the house property is stated to be utilised by the Directors for their residence. The assessee had borrowed loans from its Directors for the purchase of the said property. Interest was paid to the Directors on such borrowings. Assessee had claimed deduction on account of interest paid to the Directors in respect of money utilised for the...

R . C . Fabrics ( P ) Ltd . Vs . Union of India

Court: Delhi

Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the respondents for release of the consignment of polyester fabric imported by it against duty free advance import license No. PK 3297494 and covered by Bill of Entry No. 151684 dated August 16, 1990 without payment of demurrage, ground rent and container charges of the fourth respondent Central Warehousing Corporation and for payment of damages and interest thereon on the ground that goods were detained by the customs authority viz. second and third respondents, illegally and unauthorisedly at the Container Freight Station, Patparganj of the fourth respondent. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows :2. The petitioner deals in export of polyester shorts. He is said to have received export orders from Hongkong for the supply of 1,00,000 pieces and 60,000 pieces of polyester shorts on October 9, 1989 and November 3, 1989 respectively. It is claimed that...

Govind Saran Agarwal Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC205Tri(Delhi)

1. By the present application the applicant has made a prayer for permitting him to prefer this appeal since the adjudicating authority i.e. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi in para 2 of this order has held that "This is a final order. There is no appeal against this Order." 2. The matter was called. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellants. Shri. K.K. Jha, ld. SDR is present on behalf of the respondent. Shri Jha submitted that the appellants cannot be treated as an aggrieved person and as such he has no locus standi to file the appeal because he has not deposited the duty.3. We have heard Shri K.K. Jha, Id, SDR and gone through the records.The issue to be decided is whether the applicant can be treated as an aggrieved person in this matter, and if so, he has got right of appeal.The right of appeal is given by statute by Section 35B(a) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The same is reproduced below :- "Section 35B. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal - (1) Any person ag...

Vishwakarma Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC503Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants seek reference to the Hon'ble High Court of following questions of law said to arise out of Tribunal's Order No.A/166/94-NRB, dated 8-2-1994. 1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct to uphold the order of the Additional Collector, Kanpur which was based on a corrigendum which (corrigendum) had sought to cure the show cause which was without jurisdiction. 2. Whether mere grant of opportunity of personal hearing and observing of the principles of natural justice can validate the proceedings which were without jurisdiction. 3. Can the Department be allowed to plug the loopholes in a statutory document i.e. show cause notice was furnished by the applicants. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the Order under reference has upheld this action of the department. 4. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in upholding an order which had upon the powers of another adjudicating authority with whom the matter was lying sub judice more especially when there was no change in law. 5. Whet...

Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)52ITD147(Delhi)

1. The appellant is a private limited company. Its appeal is against the decision of the CIT (Appeals) XIV, New Delhi and it relates to the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act of Rs. 9,77,100 for assessment year 1986-87.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri G.C. Sharma and the learned Departmental Representative, Shri D.D. Goyel and have perused the records.3. The salient facts are that the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 1986-87 for which the previous year ended on 30-6-1985 on 17-9-1986 declaring income of Rs. 15,700. On 19-11-1987 there was a survey in the premises of the assessee. Statement of the Accountant of the assessee-company, Shri Mehta had been recorded during survey operations. Statement of the Director of the company had also been recorded after the survey. On 9-12-1987, assessee filed a revised return declaring income of Rs. 15,66,620 which included income of Rs. 15,50,000 as income from other sourc...