Delhi Court December 1995 Judgments

Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT293TriDel

1. This is an appeal with reference to the order of the Collector (Appeals), Madras, dated 2-12-1985.2. Learned representative of the appellants stated that they had imported Auto-Pasters which are parts of the WEB printing machine.3. The machine had itself been imported earlier and these parts were imported subsequently. They were classified under the same heading as the machine, but the benefit of Notification 114/80 as amended was not extended to them in case of these auto pasters. They cleared the goods under protest. Subsequently, when they applied for re-assessment, the Assistant Collector rejected their contention on the ground that they were accessories and not parts and further, they had not been imported under the original contract for the machine but subsequently by a separate order and the machine had been running in the meanwhile.4. The Collector (Appeals) also rejected their petition on the ground that the original contract for the machine is silent regarding the supply ...

Digital Equipment (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT381TriDel

1. The short question arising for consideration in the appeal is whether software sold to customers along with the computers is to be treated as part of the computer and duty levied accordingly. The adjudicating authority and the appellate authority have taken a view against the assessee who has come up in appeal. It is contended that appellant who manufactures computers in India purchases software from United States of America and sells computers with or without software, as may be desired by the customer and computers with software are sold for consolidated price which would include also the price of the software. A line of the decisions under the old Tariff have taken the view that the software has to be treated as part of the computer and duty charged on the total value of the computer with the software at the rate applicable to computers. Learned Counsel of the appellant has his own reservations about the correctness of the earlier decisions, which we are told are under considera...

Vatika Plantations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2769]

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. As all these writ petitions involve similar facts and similar question law, we propose to dispose of these petitions by this common judgment and order. Before we embark upon to decide the issues raised before us, we feel inclined to set out the facts of each of the writ petitions. C.W.P. No. 2691 of 1993 : By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated July 18, 1991, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, determining that the establishment of the petitioner was dealing in engineer and engineering contractor and that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and the scheme framed there under are applicable to the said establishment. The aforesaid order was ex parte against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it is engaged in the business of cultivation of all types of trees, crops and other such like agri...

V.P. Pathak Vs. S.M. Aich

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Facts giving rise to this appeal are brief and simple. The complainant purchased 175 bags of ACC Cement from V.P. Pathak, Prop. M/s. Swastik Traders, B-93, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi through 3 cash memos dated 20.3.93, 4.4.93 and 15.4.93 respectively. He laid a roof with the said cement on 9.4.93. The shuttering was removed on 23.4.93 when a portion of the roof and balcony fell down. The Architect and the contractor who were connected with the construction were of the view that the roof fell down because the cement was sub-standard and spurious. The complainant lodged a report with the police the same day and also contacted Opposite party 1 to see things for himself. Opposite party-1 is stated to have agreed to pay Rs. 70,000/- as compensation. In part payment he is further stated to have paid Rs. 15,000/- in cash. The complainant also reported the matter to ACC Ltd., opposite party 2. Opposite party 2 got an enquiry made and informed the co...

Eastern Metal and Ferro Alloys Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT104TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Eastern Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd., Cuttack being aggrieved in one case with the adjudication order dated 12/27-9-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneshwar and in the other by the Order-in-Original dated 2-7-1990 of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneshwar. As in both these appeals, issue of duty liability of ferro alloys is concerned, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The matter was heard on 15-11-1995 when Shri A.N. Haksar, ld. Sr.Advocate with Shri R. Sudhendra and Shri Gopal Prasad, Advocates appeared for the appellants. Shri G.D. Sharma, JDR appeared for the respondents.3. The matter in both these cases relates to the duty liability on ferro alloys and whether the goods in question were manufactured with or without the aid of power. The ld. Sr. Advocate stated that they had produced ferro alloys by the Alumino Thermic Process and in this process, use ...

Brima Sugar Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT83TriDel

1. Appeal No. E/3053/86-C is directed against the Order No.M/178/AUR-20/86, dated 17-3-1986 of Collector (Appeals), Bombay.2. A. No. E/798/89-C is directed against order dated 10-4-1989 of Additional Collector, Aurangabad.3. Issue in both these cases falls within the narrow compass :- admissibility of exemption in case of Steam, under Notification No.118/75, produced and supplied by M/s. Brima Sugar Limited, Shreepur to the Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd., Pune, a factory situated in the same compound.3A. Arguing for the Revenue Ld. JDR, in case of A. No. E/3053/86-C, submits that 5 Show Cause Notices demanding duty of Rs. 1,22,569.55 were issued to M/s. Brima Sugar Limited, Shreepur on the ground that they had produced and supplied steam to M/s. Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Limited, another factory which was not a factory within the definition of Rule 10E of the Central Excise Act. Moreover the Chapter X procedure as envisaged in Notification No. 118/75, even assuming t...

Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT399TriDel

1.Appellants herein are aggrieved by the Order dated 17-10-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Indore. The appellants manufactured mill steel pipes and tubes falling under Heading 73.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. About 30% of the production is cleared as black pipes and tubes on payment of duty under that heading and another 70% of the production, black pipes and tubes are subsequently galvanised in a separate section of the appellants' factory called galvanising shed. They also purchased black pipes from the market which were then galvanised and thereafter sold. The dispute herein relates to black pipes manufactured by the appellants that they themsleves subsequently galvanised in their factory. The Collector in his order has held that though galvanisation has been held to be not amounting to manufacture yet the ques tion in this case is whether galvanisation charges should be included in the assessable value of galvanised M.S. pipes sold by the a...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Northern India theatres Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)56ITD42(Delhi)

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has objected to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in allowing deduction under Section 32AB at Rs. 46,423, in respect of machinery costing Rs. 1,95,376, which could not be purchased out of the income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 72,667. Smt. Sarangi, the learned Departmental representative, supported the order of the Assessing Officer.2. Shri Chandiok, learned counsel for the appellant-company, submitted that the deduction that is to be allowed, is out of the income from the business, is of that amount that has been deposited with the IDBI or that has been utilised in the purchase of new machinery, which deposit or utilisation is further compared with twenty per cent. of the profit of the eligible business and it is the lower of the amount deposited or utilised or 20 per cent. of the profit, that would be allowed as deduction. The amount of profit of the eligible business, that has been defined in subSection (2)(i) of Section 32A...

Mayo (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(82)ELT180(Del)

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 1-5-1995 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, (in short CEGAT), directing the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. five lakhs on a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal of the petitioner, has preferred this writ petition seeking to challenge the said order passed by the CEGAT on the application for stay and dispensation of pre-deposit. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before us that one of the major contentions of the petitioner at the time of hearing of the stay application before the CEGAT was that in respect of the manufacture of excisable goods at the places of the loan licensees, the Excise department had collected the duty from the loan licensees, thereby recognising the loan licensees to be the manufacturer in respect of the said goods accordingly in view of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules providing that the duty...

Pepsico Restaurants International (i) (P) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporati ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ616

ORDER I have carefully gone through the aforesaid records placed before me, submissions made by the licensee and the aforesaid discussions, I, Dr Dev Raj, Municipal Health Officer, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Delhi hereby by virtue of the powers vested in me under Section 421(2) and 423 of Dmc Act, 1957 order that your health/trade license issued to you as aforesaid for running the trade of restaurant in your premises namely M/S Pepsico Restaurants International ( India) Pvt Ltd (Earlier named M/S Kfc India Holding Pvt Ltd) at 20, COMMUNITYCentre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi vide letter No. 1150/PA/DHO(PH)/95 dated 12.10.1995 is revoked/cancelled with immediate effect and also order you to close/stop the trade of restaurant forthwith. I also order that in case the trade of the aforesaid restaurant is not closed/stopped to my satisfaction, the restaurant shall be sealed at any time after 12 hours of issue of this order.'(11) On Notice (II) no decision has been taken nor...