Delhi Court October 1996 Judgments

Plastipeel Chemicals and Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT100TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed before him by the present appellant against the order of the Assistant Collector confirming two demands for differential duty to the extent of Rs. 15,387.34 and Rs. 9,935.13 respectively. We have heard both sides.2. The Assistant Collector initially had passed an order on 22-9-1981 which had been set aside by the Collector (Appeals) who remanded the case for fresh adjudication. After remand the Assistant Collector passed an order confirming the demand on 25-7-1986 and this has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).3. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of chemicals falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 68. Appellant had opted for self removal on the basis of invoice procedure under Notification No. 120/75, dated 30-4-1975 and availing the benefit of exemption therein. One of the finished products of the appellant is temporary corrosion preventive fluid (T.C.P.F.) which duri...

Ravi Vegetable Oil Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC125Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. However, appellant has sent a request for disposal of the appeal on merits.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of vegetable products falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 13. The prices of vegetable products are control-led by the Government in consultation with the Associations of the Manufacturers and prices have been revised from time to time. At the time relevant to this appeal, the price fixed by the Government was Rs. 229.46. The ex factory price fixed by the Government was Rs. 229.46 for 15 kgs. tin. Admittedly, appellant had been collecting, over and above such ex factory price, at the rate of Rs. 7.70 per tin of 15 kgs. as distribution charges, which was not disclosed in the excise documents. Notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why distribution charges should not be included in the assessable value and differential duty demanded. Appellant resisted the notice. Assistant Collector dropped the show cause no...

Komal Mittal Vs. University of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)351; 1996(39)DRJ810

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is directed against respondent No.2 for an appropriate writ, order and direction for declaration that the inclusion of English or Hindi marks for the purpose of calculation of the percentage of marks obtained by a candidate in computing the merit for grant of admission to B.Com.(Hons)is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified.. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner passed All India Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1996 and obtained the following marks out of the maximum prescribed 100 marks: .IsI English core 58 Economics 96 Mathematics 94 Business Studies 79 Accountancy 90(3) The petitioner applied to respondent No.2 College for registration and admission to B.Com.(Hons) course for the academic session 1996-97. It is alleged that the aforesaid marks obtained by the petitioner, if evaluated on the basis of the relevant subjects for the course of B.Com.(Hons) i.e. Economics, Mathematics, Business Studies and Accountancy...

Chander Parkash Chawta Vs. K.K. Kapoor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)143; 64(1996)DLT614; 1996(39)DRJ347; 1996RLR525

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This petition arises out of an order dated 20.11.1995 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute i.e. first floor and second floor of House No. 11/23, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.(2) Brief facts of case are that the respondents/landlords are the co-owners of the said property. It is not in dispute that the premises were let out for residential purposes. The eviction of the petitioner was sought from both first floor and second floor of premises No.11/23, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of the respondents. The petitioner was granted leave to defend on his application for the purpose and the matter was finally disposed of in favor of the respondents. Mr. Sabharwal appearing for the petitioner has attacked the impugned order only on three grounds.(3) As the first ground of attack, the petitioner alleges that the landlord is not the owner/co-owner of the premises in dispute a...

Trading Engineers Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), New Delhi dated 31-1-1986.2. Learned Counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods known as Generator and Generating Set in the common parlance. They have been clearing their goods on payment of excise duty.3. The issue involved in this case is as to whether this product was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 20/79, dated 2-2-1979 as amended.4. It provides that the generators of 100-V and above shall be charged excise duty @ 5.5% ad valorem. Hence, the appellants cleared the goods during the period August, 1979 to March, 1981 by paying excise duty.5. The appellants were, however, served with a series of show cause-cum-demand notices in 1980-81 relating to the various periods ranging from August, 1979 to March, 1981 as indicated in their appeal memorandum.6. In all these notices, the common ground on which the demand was raised by the Department was that what the appellants had manufact...

Jhunjhunwala Rolling Mills and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT787TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s Jhunjhunwala Rolling Mills & Engg.Works being aggreived with the order-in- appeal dated 15-9-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.2. The matter relates to the eligibility of exemption in respect of bars falling under item No. 25(9)(ii) of the old Central Excise Tariff under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983. This exemption notification provided exemption, among other, bars if they were manufactured out of the goods falling under sub-item 6(ii) and (iii), 7(ii), 9(ii) and 11 of Item No. 25 aforesaid. In their classification list the appellants have described that these bars were manufactured from "all types of (i) "fresh unused rerollable scrap and (ii) old and used rerollable scrap" as it was considered that the said inputs, that is, "fresh unused rerollable scrap and old and used rerollable scrap" were not covered by the specified inputs classifiable under sub-item 6(ii), 7(ii), 8(ii) and 11 of Item 25 the ex...

Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cen. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT793TriDel

1. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order dated 29-3-1996 held that in view of the above discussions, I uphold the order dated 13-11-1995 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Bareilly.The Asstt. Commissioner, in his order, had disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 15,468.25 and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of synthetic rubber and various other products. The appellants are availing modvat facilities also. On scrutiny of RT 12 return for the month of Jan. 1995, it was noticed that the appellants had filed modvat declaration under Rule 57T(1) for availing Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. On scrutiny of the declaration, it was noticed that the goods had been received before filing these declarations and that the appellants had taken the credit. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit sho...

Silicon Graphics Systems (India) Vs. Collr. of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT388TriDel

1. By the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner of Customs I, New Delhi, confiscated two sets of 20 CDs under Section 111(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, directed assessment of the goods at a cumulative price of US $10,032.50 for 20 CDs sets, confiscated all the 27 Cds (each) under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with option to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 10 lakhs as fine. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant.2. The appellant states that the goods have not been cleared and it may not be possible to clear the goods accepting the terms of the impugned order, but the facts and circumstances clearly justify a prima facie finding against the tenability of the order of imposition of penalty.3 The dispute has arisen in relation to import by appellant of one Varsity Developer Pak and 25 Media Varsity Paks. The Commissioner treated the back up Paks as extra paks not declared in the import documents. There is practically no dispute that commercially the...

Vidyut Electrical Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT246TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31-3-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The brief facts are that the appellants here in manufacture Bare Copper Wire and Super Enamelled Copper Wire falling under Heading 74.08 and 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 23-11-1991, the officers of the department visited their factory and they found that a quantity of 1754 kgs. of bare copper wire was found in excess of the recorded balance in their production account RG 1 Register. The appellants manufacture their copper wire and use it in the manufacture of their other product super enamelled copper wire. The proprietor of the appellant in a statement admitted the non-accountal and explained that it was due to the fact that he could not attend the factory for the past 10 days due to domestic problems. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants which resulted in the order dated 30-1-1992 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Cent...

Cooling Systems Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT329TriDel

1. By Order-in-Original No. 5/DC/86, dated 8-1-1996 the Additional Collector of Central Excise confirmed the demand of differential duty of Rs. 52,737.30 for the year 1983-84 and Rs. 22,031.62 for the year 1984-85 being the service charges collected by M/s. Parikh Associates in regard to air conditioners manufactured and sold by the appellant and imposed penalty of Rs. 80,000/- on the appellant. This order is now challenged.2. Appellant and M/s. Parikh Associates and proprietary concerns, the proprietors being the husband and wife respectively. M/s. Parikh Associates was set up in 1974 as a trading concern. During some period the concern was also engaged in assembling window air conditioning units. Appellant concern was set up in 1982 for manufacture of window air conditioning units. During the two years in question appellant cleared 62 & 15 units respectively on payment of excise duty on the value declared without disclosing that service of most of units were being attended to by...