Delhi Court June 1995 Judgments

Satwant Singh and Mohd. Islam Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT472TriDel

1. These appeals are directed against the Order in Original No.: 1-Collar/Cus./90, dated 1-3-1990 of Collector (Customs), Kanpur, and were heard together.2. The facts in brief are that Police Officers of Thana Chakeri, Kanpur, intercepted one truck carrying goods of foreign origin concealed under sugarcane. The driver of the truck, Sh. Nanhey, managed to escape from the spot and the other two passengers, namely, S/Shri Mohd. Zamal and Mohd. Islam, were arrested by the Police. Truck was found to carry goods of foreign origin like cloves, cameras and crockery, etc., totally valued at Rs. 6,52,000/-. Pursuant to Show Cause Notice issued to the owner of the truck Sh. Satwant Singh and the two passengers found travelling in the truck, the proceedings culminated in confiscation of truck and imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the Appellant, Sh. Satwant Singh, the owner of the truck, and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-among others on Mohd. Islam, the second appellant. The truck was allowed to be...

East India Transport Agency Vs. Ashok Maheshwari

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent booked 10 bundles of books from Delhi to Calcutta through the appellant Transport Agency on 27.1.90. The consignment was lost on way and could not, therefore, be delivered to the consignee. The respondent served legal notice dated 17.9.90 claiming Rs. 32,735.25 paise, besides interest and cost, being the value of books sent under the consignment. Having failed to receive any relief, the respondent approached District Forum who directed the appellant to pay the aforesaid amount besides interest @ 18 per cent per annum w.e.f. 17.9.90, that is the date of notice. Aggrieved by the order, the Transport Agency has preferred this appeal. The only grievances put forward by Sh. Parveen K. Uppal, Advocate, for the appellant is that the appellant was not heard prior to passing of the order under appeal and secondly the respondent should not have rushed to the District Forum without a waiting the out come o...

Minus Polycoats Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT161TriDel

1. These two appeals by M/s. Minus Polycoats, New Delhi, deal with the identical issue and are, therefore, disposed of by this order.2. First, the background. The appellant is a proprietary concern, the proprietor being Shri M. Chawla. It was registered with the Directorate of Industries, Delhi as a small scale industry for the manufacture of multi-layered co-extruded plastic film. The registration certificate dated 22-2-1988 indicated that the registration number allotted was provisional, and further advised the firm that the validity of the number was a year from the date of issue. If the concern was not able to complete formalities before the expiry of this period, it should apply for extension month before the date of expiry. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 22-10-1988 was issued by the Director of Industries proposing cancellation of the certificate on the ground that, despite 8 months having lapsed, no machinery was installed and unit had not arranged for factory premises...

Transformers and Electricals Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT682TriDel

The appellants imported a consignment of transformer press board and cleared the same on payment of duty vide Bill of Entry 416/29-6-1990 XD/28, dated 17-7-1990. They filed a refund claim on the ground that the goods are eligible for concessional rate of duty as per Notification 20/88 on the strength of DGTD certificate produced by them. The claim for refund was rejected on the ground that the appellants did not satisfy the conditions laid down under Notification 20/88 at the time of clearance as they did not produce the DGTD certificate at the time of clearance and they did not produce any evidence to show that the duty incidence had not been passed on to any other person as required under the rules.2. The appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order was rejected by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin in the impugned order dated 21-10-1992 who held that the conditions of production of DGTD Certificate, giving undertaking regarding end-use of imported ...

Super Marbles (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(80)ELT293TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order in Appeal No. 15/91 dated 5-6-1991 of Additional Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur.2. Facts in brief are that the Appellants were manufacturers of marble slabs, falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 25.04 and had a factory located in Rajsamand, Rajasthan. The appellants were financed by Rajasthan Financial Corporation at the time when the factory was set up. Since appellants had failed to pay some instalments of loan, the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (RFC) took possession of the factory on 6-6-1987. Consequent on verification of stocks by Central Excise Officers on 15/16-11-1988, a Show Cause Notice dated 3-11-1989 was issued to the Appellants alleging that there was shortage of goods and, therefore, appellants, it was alleged, had removed 2239.154 Sq. Mts. of marble slabs without issuing Central Excise gate pass and without payment of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 22,391.54. The Additional Collector in his impugned order dated 5-6...

Webel Telematik Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT617TriDel

1. The captioned six appeals have been filed by M/s. Webel Telematics Ltd. being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Ld. Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) had held: "I have carefully considered all the submissions of the appellants as mentioned in the appeal petition. The appellants produced the certificate as required by Notification No. 60/88 much after the clearance of the goods. In fact the certificate was not even applied for when the Bill of Entry was filed for home consumption. As such the Notification rate of duty was not applicable to the imported goods on the date of presenting the Bill of Entry. The goods were correctly assessed as per the applicable rate of duty oh the day of presentation of the Bill of Entry. Under Section 15, that rate is applicable and not the notification rate of duty. In that view of the matter, the rejection of the refund claim based upon reassessment of rate of duty is correct and proper. The appeal lacks merit and it is reje...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Modi Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT712TriDel

1. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector Central Excise (Appeals) in his order had held : "I have considered both the aforesaid issues" in great detail in my order-in-appeal C. Nos. 111 & 105-CE/Appl/CHG/82 & 83, dated 10-11-1983 (copy enclosed). In view of my findings in the said order-in-appeal, I allow this appeal." In the order referred to in this order, the Collector (Appeals) had held : "In view of the foregoing discussions, I uphold both the pleas of the appellant, namely (i) that runners and risers are steel ingots or steel melting scrap depending upon what they are fit for, and (ii) that the relevant exemption notifications (in the instant case 156/79, dated 9-4-1979 and 53/80, dated 18-5-1980) are applicable not only to steel ingots but also to steel melting scrap. I am aware that the latter finding is contrary to Appellate Tribunal's decision in the afore...

Pan Asia Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT322TriDel

1. M/s. Pan Asia Enterprises have filed this appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs. The Collector of Customs in his order has held as under : "(1) I, therefore, order that the value of the goods imported i.e. CLC 300 be taken at Rs. 6,72,835/- FOB + 20% frt. + 1.125% ins. = Rs. 8,14,971/- C1F per piece and pay the duty accordingly. I order confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 16,29,942/- CIF under Section lll(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, an option under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is given to M/s. Pan Asia Enterprises to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only). This option shall be exercised within a month from the date of receipt of this order; (2) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) on M/s. Pan Asia Enterprises under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellants imported two Canons Colour Laser Copiers CLC 300 with accessories; ...

Pefco Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT498TriDel

1. The appellants herein manufacture various bulk drugs including Mebendazole during the manufacture of which a substance known as 3-4 Diamino Benzophenone (DABP) emerges as an intermediate product. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan Division III, Bombay-III Collectorate by his order dated 26-5-1987 held that DABP at intermediate stage is classifiable as other organic compound under sub-heading 2913.00 Central Excise Tariff Act. He overruled the appellants contention that at that stage DABP is in crude from and not goods at all since it is not marketable at crude stage. They had also in this regard produced an affidavit from one Dr. R. Maheshwari who said that crude DABP is different from purified DABP and that DABP in its crude form which is vised for captive consumption in manufacture of Mebendazole is a product which cannot be bought and sold in the market.The Assistant Collector in repelling these contentions invoked Rule 2 of the Rules for the interp...

Krishan Dass Chaurasia and Another Vs. State Bank of India and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, J: 1. Briefly stated the material facts of this case are that the complainants purchased State Bank of India Magnum Certificate valuing rupees one lac under the Magnum Monthly Income Scheme, 1989, in the year 1989. They surrendered the said certificate on 7.4.92 and requested O.P. No. 1 to make the payment by 1.5.92. The payment having not been made, a reminder was sent on 19.5.92. Pay order of the amount dated 20.5.92 was sent by O.P. 1 with a forwarding letter which was received on 8.7.92. The O.P. stated to have wrongly despatched the pay order of SBI, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi Branch and the same was re-delivered to O.P. 1 under the wrong impression that signatures of the complainants had been verified by SBI, Paschim Vihar Branch. In fact the signatures had been verified by the complainants' banker namely Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The complainants had therefore to open a fresh bank account with the SBI, Paschim Vihar Branch ...