Delhi Court December 1994 Judgments

Mangal Dass Chopra Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT596TriDel

1. Shri Mangal Dass Chopra had filed an application to the Honourable High Court of Delhi under Section 130(3) of Customs Act, 1962 after this Tribunal had [referred]1 to state the case under Section 130(1) ibid. The Honourable High Court had, vide their order dated 11-7-1994 in Customs Act case No. 2/94, directed that the following two questions out of the four questions proposed by the applicant do arise as questions of law from the order of the Tribunal and accordingly directed this Tribunal to draft a statement of case and refer the same to them for their opinion. The said questions are :- "I. Whether it is correct position in law for the Tribunal to hold in the facts and circumstances of the case that abetment to smuggling under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act can be concluded without establishing any relation to the offending goods? IV. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law to hold in the facts and circumstances of the case that oral evidence of the main accused, without oppo...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.M. Lal and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the opposite party (O.P.) against the order of District Forum No. II (D.F.) dated 9.3.94 by which the claim of the complainant was allowed. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant purchased a House Holder Insurance Policy from the O.P. which included policy for repair of the electrical goods. It is pleaded by the complainant that his refrigerator went out of the order and he got the same repaired by spending Rs. 8,000/-, for which the goods were insured. The O.P. allowed Rs. 1,920/- which was not .acceptable to him. Consequently, he filed a complaint before the District Forum. The opposite party after appearing on some hearings did not appear. Consequently, they were proceeded against ex-parte. 3. The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the O.P. to pay Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant with interest @15% p.a. from 1.7.91 to the date of payment. The O.P. has come up in appeal against the said order to the Commis...

Swarup Vegetable Products Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT194TriDel

1. M/s. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Limited are the manufacturers of the vegetable product falling under Tariff Item 13 of the Central Excise Tariff. While checking RT 12 returns for the months of April, 1981 to October, 1981 with the help of invoice it was found that M/s. Swarup Vegetable Products were charging Rs. 4 per tin distribution charges over and above the approved assessable value. It was of the view that it was therefore clear that this fact of charging of Rs. 4 per tin from their customer was not disclosed and was concealed by the party from Central Excise Department. No break up of the said distribution charges was mentioned in the invoice issued in this regard. Accordingly seven show cause notices covering the aforesaid periods of April, 1981 to October, 1981 were issued to the party requiring them to show cause as to why the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 33,947.65 short paid on this account should not be demanded from them under the provisions of Section...

Weston Electronics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC326Tri(Delhi)

1. The above application has been filed in terms of Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 seeking reference to the High Court of the following questions of law purporting to have arisen out of the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/766/94-NRB, dated 24-8-1994: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that Modvat credit in respect of goods cleared by 100% EOU would be available only to the extent of countervailing duty portion of excise which has actually been paid by the said 100% EOU. 2. Whether in terms of Rule 57A read with Notification No. 177/86- C.E., dated 1-3-1986 modvat credit can be allowed to the extent of countervailing duty leviable on the like goods if imported into India even when 100% EOU has not paid the countervailing duty portion of the excise duty? 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, just because the 100% EOU is exempted from the payment of the countervailing duty portion of excise, whether ...

Punjstar Standard Electronics Vs. Coller. of C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT582TriDel

1. M/s. Punjstar Standard Electronics Ltd., Mohali (Shahzada Ajit Singh Nagar), Punjab has filed the above captioned appeals being aggrieved from the Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Two stay applications have also been filed. Notices were issued for today's hearing. Since the issue involved in both the matters is common and as such both the stay applications are being disposed of by this common order. Shri A.K.S. Bedi, learned Advocate pleaded that the appellant is a manufacturer of television sets and the period in dispute is 24-6-1977 to 12-9-1980. He pleaded that the television sets were assessed under erstwhile Tariff Item 33A(1) and price lists were filed in Part-I and provisional assessments were approved initially. He pleaded that forwarding and packing charges have been included in the assessable value. He pleaded that in the show-cause notices issued by the Assistant Collector there was no mention of the demands and the demands were raised by the Su...

Saraya Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT201TriDel

1. This is an appeal by M/s. Saraya Steel Limited against order in appeal No. 4/CE/Alld/90, dated 19-8-1990 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi rejecting their appeal and upholding the order in original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Gorakhpur whereby he had disallowed Modvat credit to them for the period prior to 10-7-1986 when their declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was received in his office. He had also held them ineligible for the benefit under Rule 57H for the inputs received by them during the period 1-3-1986 to 1-4-1986 as they had not applied for such a benefit while submitting their Rule 57G declaration. Their appeal to Collector (Appeals) was rejected by her as she found that Modvat credit had been disallowed by the Assistant Collector not merely on technical ground but on the grounds of statutory provisions of law.She observed that the impugned order of the Assistant Collector was based on facts and co...

Taj Fireworks Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC555Tri(Delhi)

1. The point to be considered in this appeal is whether Serpent Eggs manufactured by the appellants are classifiable as Fire Works as held by the Department or as 'Other' falling under Heading 3604.90 as claimed by the appellants. The claim of the appellants that items are classifiable under 3604.90 as Pyrotechnic toys other than fire-works has been denied by the Assistant Collector holding that item is classifiable under Heading 3604.10 on the ground that it produces thick smoke upon its ignition and snake like ash emerges. While upholding the view of the Assistant Collector, the Collector (Appeals) observed that in view of the predominant trade parlance and acceptance of Serpent Eggs as 'fireworks' by other manufacturers, the classification made by the Assistant Collector is proper and correct. The relevant Heading 36.04 and sub-headings are as follows :-"36.04 Fireworks, signalling flares, rain rockets, FOG signals and other 2. Arguing for the appellants Shri V. Sridharan submitted...

Hindustan Wire Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT377TriDel

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) setting aside two adjudication orders of the Assistant Collector by which he upheld the claim of the appellants to the eligibility of modvat credit @ Rs. 6200/- PMT on copper bars and copper rods used as inputs in the manufacture of their final products viz.copper winding wires during the period 12-7-1986 to 31-3-1987.2. We have heard Smt. Archana Wadhwa, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri M.M. Mathur, learned JCDR for the Revenue.3. The appellants herein are a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of copper winding wires classifiable under Heading No. 8544 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The effective rate of duty on the said goods during the material period was 15% ad valorem as per serial No. 2 of Notification No. 69/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 as amended by Notification No. 163/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986.The main raw material used as an 'input' in the ma...

Sheesh NaraIn Agarwal Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT207TriDel

1. The appellants are aggrieved by Order No. 1/Collec-tor/Cus./89, dated 4-10-1989 ordering absolute confiscation of 525 Silver Coins valued at Rs. 14,175/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the appellants on the ground that the appellants admitted transport of specified goods to Bombay, a Specified Area, without cover of prescribed transport vouchers.2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the Collector's Adjudicating order in the very first para indicate that "the Preventive Officers Central Excise, Kanpur intercepted the appellant on 15-10-1980 who was coming to Railway Station alongwith one Shri R.K. Shukla. The Preventive Officers during the course of search recovered 525 coins of silver valued at Rs. 14,175.00 and..." The Show Cause Notice dated 13-7-1988 however indicates that Preventive Officer intercepted Shri Sheesh Narain Agarwal, the appellants on 15-10-1980 at Kanpur Railway Station. The Railway ticket from Kanpur to Bombay alongwith Platform ticket was also rec...

Auto Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT325TriDel

1. M/s. Auto Industries have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise. The Collector of Central Excise in his order had held :- "I impose a penalty of Rs. 24,900/- on M/s. Auto Industries under Rule 173-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.I also demand a sum of Rs. 83,033.28 being the duty for the clearance of tread rubber cleared in excess of the exemption limit of Rs. 7.5 lakhs during the year 1983-84 from M/s. Auto Industries under the extended time limit under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the party is within the exemption limit during the year 1984-85, no duty is payable by them." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on a visit on 8-3-1985 Central Excise Officers found M/s. Auto Industries in addition to another unit by the name of M/s. Rubber Industries was existing in premises No. 29A. In the premises of M/s. Auto Industries the officers found some raw-material, comprising reclaimed rubber, raw-rubber. They a...