Delhi Court May 1994 Judgments

Geeta Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC276Tri(Delhi)

1. When the matter was called none has appeared on behalf of the applicants. There is, however, request from the ld. Advocate Shri Bipin Garg that the matter may be decided on merits since it ' is already covered by Tribunal's Order Nos. E/86 to 95/94-B1 and Final Order No.E/135 to 144/94-B1, dt. 3-3-1994. Ld. PR Shri K.K. Dutta fairly concedes the aforesaid position. We also notice that the impugned order has already been set aside in the case of another parry M/s. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills vide Tribunal's Stay Order No. E/145/94-B1 and Final Order No. E/246/94-B1, dt. 29-4-1994 in Appeal No. E/506/94-B1.We allow the stay petition unconditionally and allow the appeal in the following terms as stated in order dt. 29-4-1994 (supra). "We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. We are not impressed by the pleas raised by the ld. Advocate that they were eligible to use ingots for manufacture of bars and rods when the particular inputs was . only rerollable mater...

Collector of Customs Vs. Sri Sarathi Studios (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT382TriDel

1.1 The respondents herein imported one No. Arriflex 35 111 Camera with accessories against capital goods allowed under OGL of ITC Policy 1984-March 1985. They filed an application for registration of their purchase order No. Nil dated 28-6-1984 under Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 for assessment under Heading 84.66 C.T.A., 1975. The respondents herein filed an application for registration on the ground that the existing unit of film production is for substantial expansion. The camera with accessories was needed for shooting of films both indoors and outdoors.1.2 The original authority, namely, the Assistant Collector of Customs, denied the registration and consequently the benefit of Tariff Heading 84.66 on the ground that the film production unit of the respondents cannot be treated as an industrial plant inasmuch as an industrial plant envisages production of goods whereas no such production of goods takes place here. The activity of shooting of films ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Century Laminating Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT487TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the respondents M/s.Century Laminating Co. Ltd. Hapur are the manufacturer of Plastic Laminating sheet falling under heading 3920.31 of CET, 1985. It was the case of the Revenue that the respondents cleared 18.346 MT of unbleached absorbent kraft paper from their factory under Rule 57F(1)(ii) during November, 1989 without payment of appropriate Central Excise duty on the allegation that they received the said kraft paper on payment of duty and availed of Modvat credit at the restricted rate of Rs. 800/- per tonne in view of Notification No. 149/87-C.E., dated 20-5-1987 and at the time of clearance of the same they paid the duty only equal to Modvat credit availed of by them that is to say at the rate of Rs. 800/-per tonne by debiting instead of paying the appropriate rate of duty leviable on the said goods at the t...

Central Construction and Engg. Vs. Collr. of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT777TriDel

1. M/s. Central Construction & Engg. Co. Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. Addl. Collector. The ld.Addl. Collector in his order had held :- "In view of the above, I am convinced that the cement mill had run for extra hours during the period from 24-2-1988 to 15-8-1988. However, in the Show Cause Notice while calculating the duty short paid, the benefit of those cases where the working hours recorded in the production slips were more than the ones shown in the log books, has not been given during the period from 1-3-1988 to 15-8-1988 which I hold to be incorrect. After allowing this benefit, total hours for which the mill had run extra, comes to 228.3 hours. On the basis of average production per hour during the relevant period, the quantity of cement less accounted for and duty evaded come to 471.150 MT and Rs. 91,622.06 (BED Rs. 87,350.99 + SED Rs. 4,271.07) respectively. I, therefore, demand a duty of Rs. 91,622.06 under Rule 9(1) read wi...

instamedic International Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT701TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 26-2-1993 passed by Collector (Appeals) Trichy against denial of benefit of exemption in respect of imported items namely : Foley Balloon Catheters under Notification No. 208/81, dated 22-9-1981. The ld. Collector has held that the goods are not eligible for duty free clearance under said notification in view of introduction of explanation in the notification brought about by an amending Notification No. 46/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989 by which the item in question is deleted. These goods had been imported on 1-1-1987 which is much earlier to the date of the amending notification which came into operation on 1-3-1989. The goods had been confiscated on the ground that it had infringed the trade mark of another foreign manufacturer. A show cause notice had been issued to that effect and thereafter an order-in-original dated 30-6-1987 was passed imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and in [lieu] lieu of the confiscation, a redemption fi...

Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT219TriDel

1. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry dated 3-7-1993 for clearance of four numbers of "Capacitance Bridge", along with copy of invoices, Bill of Entry, Advance Licence dated 4-6-1993, DEEC Book No. 81961 and Catalogue from Asea Brown Boveri, Sweden for "Portable Capacitance Bridge CB-10" along with copy of purchase order dated 21-6-1993.2. On scrutiny of the above documents, the department found the item 'Capacitance Bridge' have been mentioned in the description of goods under Advance Licence dated 4-6-1993 and which was also listed in part 'C list of materials in DEEC Book. However, it appeared that the importers were not entitled to the benefit of duty of free clearances in terms of customs Notification No. 159/90 dated 30-3-1990 for the following reasons as noted below : "i. The Notification fully exempts materials required for the purpose of manufacture of products (Resultant Products) or replenishment of materials having identical specifications and technical characteristics a...

Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(77)ELT532(Del)

ORDER1. The petitioner by this stay application seeks stay of operation of sub-para (iii) of Para 2 of Circular No. 7/94, dated 19-4-1994 issued by Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce regarding transferable facility in terms of Para 127 of the Handbook of Procedures (Volume 1) 1992-97, (Revised Edition : March, 1994). Briefly the facts are these : 2. On 28th April, 1993 advance/duty free license was issued in favor of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited. That license became transferable by issue of letter dated 6-9-1993 (Annexure P-2). Annexure P-2 states that the license has been made transferable in terms of Para 127 of current Handbook read with Para 67 of current policy. The license was transferred by Tata and Steel Company Ltd. in favor of M/s. Mohan Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. on 17th December, 1993. On 10-2-1994, M/s. Mohan Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. intimated to TISCO for transfer of license in favor of the petitioner. It was transferred in favor of the petiti...

Maman Singh Vs. M/S. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. The complainant purchased a Montana car on 10th April, 1990 for Rs. 1,16,412/-. It is alleged that the car did not function properly and various defects appeared therein within a short time of taking its delivery. It was sent to workshop as many as 21 times but the defects could not be removed by the opposite parties. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to refund Rs. 1,16,412/- with interest @18% p.a. and pay Rs. 17,242/- as cost of repairs and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by him. The complaint has been contested by the respondents. They controverted the allegation of the complainant. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The matter is covered by a decision of this Commission in Vikram Singh v. M/s. Sipani Automobiles Limitied (Case No.C-96/91) decided on 13th April, 1993. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled ...

U. Kashyap Vs. D.D.A. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(2)ARBLR65(Delhi); 56(1994)DLT282

J.K. Mehra, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 14, 17 and 18 of the Arbitration Act 1940 filed by the petitioner. On a notice of filing of the award by the arbitrator, Respondent No. 3, in the court, being served on the Respondents 1 and 2, the Respondents 1 and 2 filed the objections to the Award dated 31.1.1991 published by Shri R. C. Bakhru, the Sole Arbitrator. The said objections were registered as I.A. 505/91. 2. Counsel for the Objector has objected to the award only in respect of three claims, namely, Claims No. 1, 11 and 14. 3. I have been taken through the award and the objection petition. 4. On Claim No. 1, I find that the arbitrator had denied to the objectors a right to charge for the cement at the rate awarded and to make recovery at that rate. In the face of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Tea Co. v. K. Shashikant Co. : AIR1987SC81 , and also in Coimbatore District Podu Thozillar Sangam v. Bala Subramania Country and others : [1987]3SCR852...

Sharpmax Engineers Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT134TriDel

1. In both these appeals, common question of facts and law is involved, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. By a common order, Collector (Appeals) disposed of three appeals. Two appeals of the appellants and one appeal from the department on the same issue.The Assistant Collector's Order-in-Original was also challenged by the Revenue and hence three appeals came to be disposed of, which are challenged before us. The ld. JDR, Shri S.K. Sharma, at the outset, submitted that the assessee should also file one more appeal, as three appeals had been disposed of by the ld. Collector. We don't see any merit in this submission as the Order-in-original dt. 23-11-1990 had been challenged by both the parties and as the grievances of both the parties arose from a common order-in-original, therefore, the disposal of two appeals arising out of one Order-in-original could mean disposal of two appeals and not three. The assessee is aggrieved with the Order-in-original in respect ...