Delhi Court December 1995 Judgments

Polychem Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT156TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 17-6-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune.2. In this order, the learned Collector has drawn the following issues for his determination: (i) whether conditions of the Notification No. 53/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 as amended, are fulfilled; (ii) whether Modvat credit availed, on the duty paid VAM can be treated as duty paid or otherwise; (iii) whether company has an option to pay duty on their own in case the goods are fully exempted from payment of duty.The ld. Collector has noted that the assessee had been availing duty concession under Notification No. 53/88-C.E., dated 1st March, 1988 as amended, for their product 'Polynol' i.e., Polyvinyl Alcohol and using VAM, the raw material, captively for the same. In view of this fact, the assessees are not required to pay any duty on VAM. Moreover, they were entitled for duty exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986, they have preferred to forgo t...

Agricultural Produce Marketing Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)57ITD109(Delhi)

1. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi dated 2-12-1994 on various grounds. Ground No. 1 urged by the assessee is as follows :-- 1. (a) That the fees and other charges which the appellant 'market-committee' established by an Act of Parliament is empowered to levy on specified persons who enter the market and which are to be deposited into a fund called "The Marketing Fund" cannot be regarded as the 'income' of the appellant for purposes of taxation under the I.T. Act. They are in the nature of tax or fees levied by the State. (b) Assuming that such fees and charges are income of the State, they are immune from Union taxation under Article 289 of the Constitution of India. (c) That the learned Income-tax authorities below have also wrongly construed the provisions of Section 10(29) which suggest that the fees and other charges levied by the appellant market-committee being an 'Authority' constituted under the law do not constitute its income for purposes...

Atul Talwar Vs. Vinod Kumar Khurana and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 61(1996)DLT406

K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The main suit is for specific performance. is No. 8049/ 95 was filed for injunction by the plaintiff. is No. 81S6/95 was filed by the defendants for vacating the ad interim injunction granted On 29.08.1995 is No. 8049/95 was dismissed for default. It will appear that there was an appeal against that order. On 19.10.1995 the Division Bench passed an order in effect setting aside the order of the dismissal in view of the submission made by learned Counsel for the defendants that he would not oppose the application filed by the plaintiff for restoration of is No. 8049/95. is No. 8584/95 (Under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC) is for restoration of the dismissal of is No. 8049 /95 on 28.9.1995. thereforee is No. 8584/ 95 is allowed. is No. 8049/95 for injunction stands restored. (2) is No. 8049/95 for injunction is dealt with is No. Si 86/95 which is filed by the defendants for setting aside the ad interim order. Then- is also another is filed by the plaintiff subsequently i.e. i...

Wazir Chand and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT383TriDel

1. The above appeal has been preferred against the order dated 6-1-1992 of the Additional Collector of Customs, Import Air Cargo, I.G.I.Airport, New Delhi levying custom duty of Rs. 9,34,514/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% from the date of importation till the date of payment and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh upon the appellants herein. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants submitted their Import and Export Passbook dated 7-6-1988 and requested for issue of No Objection Certificate. From a verification, of the passbook, it transpired that the appellants had not utilised 36104.50 wtg brass scrap imported free of duty for the manufacture of their resultant product specified in the passbook, namely Brass Art Wares and Handicrafts. The non-utilisation of this quantity has been arrived at by subtracting the quantity utilised as indicated in the passbook in Part G from the quantity actually imported which is as follows : A show cause notice was issued to...

Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT156TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 20-4-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether Argon gas used for homogenising temperature of the liquid steel in the ladle used for carrying molten metal from the furnace to the melt in the manufacturing of steel would be an input excluded from the purview of Modvat under Rule 57A. By the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) has rejected the appellants' contention that Argon gas used in the manufacture of steel is consumable and not capable of repeated use and has held that it is more in the nature of too or appliance.2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Shri P.S. Bedi, learned Consultant submitted that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding that Argon gas used in the manufacture of steel was in the nature of tool or appliance. He submitted that the Argon gas used in the manufacture of steel to be deemed as an input for the purpose ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gupta Glass Traders

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT187TriDel

1. These appeals involving common issue arise against order dated 23-9-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. In this case refund claims were filed before the Assistant Collector on the ground that the goods, viz., Block Boards were classifiable under 4410.90 attracting nil rate of duty in. terms of Tribunal's Order No. 790 to 792/90-D, dated 18-12-1990 whereas the goods had been charged to duty under subheading 4408.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Collector (Appeals) held that the claim for refund filed by the respondent had been sanctioned and the amount of refund had actually been paid before coming into force of the Central Excise & Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991, dated 18-9-1991. There was no legal basis on the part of the Revenue to demand amounts on the grounds of unjust enrichment.3. No one is present on behalf of the respondent. On behalf of the appellant-Collector, Shri Y.R. Kilania, JDR reiterated the grounds as given in t...

United Oil Mill Machinery and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT282TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed against the order-in-appeal No.101-CE/DLH/86, dated 29-1-1986 passed by Collector (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The learned counsel stated that the appellant is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of Oil Mill Machinery and Spare Parts for use in vegetable oil mill industries. These goods are covered under Tariff Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.Approximately, 90% of the production of the appellant is exported to various countries in the world, whereas the balance 10% is sold in the local market in India. The appellant has taken out a Central Excise Licence in Form L-4 and has been complying with all the formalities as contemplated under the various provisions of the said Act or the Rules made thereunder. The appellant on the advice of the local Central Excise authorities sought for the permission to work under Rule 56C of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the permi...

B.L. Sajdeh Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed against the Adjudication Order No. ADJ/ ADE/ 52-53 /Bom. of 1986, dated 10-9-1986, under which a penalty of Rs. 10,000 has been imposed on the first appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(a), read with section 64(2), of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act') in his individual capacity and a penalty of Rs. 2,500 for contravention of section 16(1)(a) read with section 68(1) in his capacity as a partner of the second appellant. A penalty of Rs. 5,000 has been imposed on the second appellant for contravention of section 16(1)(a). 2. Initially, the memorandum of appeal dated 14-10-1986 was filed by the first appellant without expressly mentioning therein that it was a joint appeal on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the second appellant but it is clear from the contents of the said Memorandum that the appeal was intended on behalf of both the appellants. But apparently on an objection taken in the course of the hearing on 16-12-1987 at...

Gem Watches Manufacturing Ind. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT185TriDel

1. This appeal arises from the order dated 11-2-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellants are manufacturers of watches. They informed the department in the R.T. 12 Returns of December 1989 about the alleged theft of 4274 pieces of wrist watches from the department. The theft is supposed to have occurred on 25-11-1989 as per the FIR filed by the appellant. As per Rule 147 of Central Excise Rules, the appellants were required to have informed to the department within 48 hours after the discovery of such loss or destruction of the goods for claiming remission of duty, in this case, the appellants, did not inform the department immediately but only informed on 16-1-1990 in the R.T. 12 returns. Therefore, the department issued a show cause notice dated 2-5-1990 calling upon them to show-cause as to why duty amount of Rs. 18399.57 not paid on 4274 pieces of wrist watches should not be recovered from them under Section HA of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. T...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hitech Cable

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT88TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector (Appeals), New Delhi dated 4-5-1994.2. Ld. DR stated that the dispute relates to the excisability of short length wires etc. claimed as waste and scrap of insulated wires and cables by the Respondent. A waste is either a waste of cable or waste of PVC or a combination of both. Hence, the test to be applied is as to which of the material predominates on the basis of interpretative Rule 2(b) read with Rule 3(b).3. Furthermore, the Board had laid down a procedure for clearance of scrap and according to this procedure either the wire pieces must not be of length exceeding 12 inches or the scrap could be burned to remove insulation or it could be hammered and pressed to render it unfit for use. Therefore, only such cut pieces as are of the above type or subjected to the above processes could be allowed to be cleared as waste and scrap. In the present cases what is sought to be cleared are in fact short lengths of w...