Delhi Court November 1996 Judgments

K.B. Plascon (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT473TriDel

1. The learned Collector (Appeals) in the instant case allowed credit of duty paid on inputs described as Indothyne or Indothene LDPE falling under sub-heading 3901.10 but did not allow benefit of input duty credit on the item described as plastic granules falling under Heading 3901.20 and the product described as pilene ultra falling under sub-heading 3901.10 on the ground that the products were not declared in the declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The learned Collector (Appeals) also upheld imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,000.00. Being aggrieved, the appellant have filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic and products thereof. They procured from the market various inputs. The department alleged that the inputs described as Indothene LDPE, Plastic granules and pilene ultra were not declared in the declaration filed. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the appellants...

Som Vihar Apartment Owners Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)60ITD392(Delhi)

1. The assessee is in appeal against order dated 16-8-1991 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissing its appeal against order of assessment dated 13-2-1991 as passed by the Assessing Officer.2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It was incorporated on 9-4-1985. The main object of the assessee is to maintain, manage and administer the colony known as Som Vihar Apartment (SVA) consisting of block of residential apartments (A to J) and Central facilities. The bye-laws of the assessee-society have been drafted on the basis of model bye-laws which Registrar of Cooperative Societies had framed for each class or sub-class of cooperative society, in accordance with rule 14 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973. The apartments were constructed and allotted by Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) (which itself is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860) to ...

Union of India and Others Vs. Inder Krishan Kaul and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. One Smt. Roopaji obtained some six-year National Savings Certificates from GPO, Srinagar on 11.6.85. The certificates were to mature for payment alongwith interest which had accrued on 11.6.91. Smt. Roopaji had nominated the respondents as nominees under the said certificates. Because of terrorist activities in the valley Smt. Roopaji and other members of the family had to shift to Delhi where she died on 16.9.90. On the maturity of the NSCs the nominees, through Mr. Inder Krishan Kaul, requested Sub- Post Master, Timarpur to take necessary steps so that after verification the amount could be paid to the nominees. The Sub-Post Master worte to GPO, Srinagar to verify the particulers. Inspite of all fomalities having been completed by the nominees, payment was not made and the nominees filed a complaint before District Forum-I on 18.2.93. The complaint was contested. During the pendency of the same, payment of Rs. 32,240/- was made on 24.3.93. The District Fo...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mehta Vegetables Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT229TriDel

1. In all these three appeals common question of law and facts are involved, hence we have taken up together for disposal as per law. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether "Spent Earth" and "Spent Nickel Catalyst" which emerges as residue are exciseable goods for the purpose of classifying the same under sub-heading 1507.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, being a residue product and as to whether the attracted Central Excise Duty @12% Adv. under Notification 76/86 is leviable.2. At the outset, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent pointed out that the issue is no longer resintegra. Ld. Advocate pointed out to the judgment rendered in the case of Kusum Products v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta as reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 639, where in the Tribunal has held that spent Nickle Catalyst is not to be manufactured product and the same is not excisable. In this connection, the Tribunal has noted its earlier judgment rendered in the ca...

English Electric Co. India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT394TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. English Electric Co. (I) Ltd., Madras, the classification of the products "control switches for a voltage not exceeding 1000 volts", is involved. The appellants had classified theif product under Heading No. 85.38 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff) as parts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus of Heading No. 8535 or 8536 or 8537. The department had classified the said products under Heading No.85.36 which reads as under :-85.36 Electrical apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits, or for making connections to or in electrical circuits (for example switches, relays, fuses, surge suppressors, plugs, sockets, lamp holders, junction boxes) for a voltage not exceeding 1000 volts.8536.10 Overload protection or thermal relays, starting relay controls, for refrigeration and air conditioning appliances and machinery.8536.90 Others 2. The appellants had also contended that in case the goo...

Danfoss (J) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT317TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay, dated 3-12-1986.2. The ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturers of Hydraulic Systems which are customs built to suit individual needs and help in the modernisation of existing equipment or for introducing this modern technology to the Indian manufacturers.3. Certain components/sub-assemblies of the hydrostatic steering systems were imported by them and the A.C. classified them under Heading 87.04/87.06 and passed the order dated 17-8-1984.4. They cleared the goods under protest and the appeal was rejected by the Collector (Appeals) as unsubstantiated.5. It was their contention that it was erroneously rejected as such because they had produced all relevant documents including invoice, catalogues of suppliers etc. Separate catalogues of components could not be produced as such catalogue is not supplied by the manufacturer.6. They have enclosed a brief technical note on the hydrostatic steering system ...

Electronic Circuits Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT68TriDel

1. Being aggrieved by the order of learned Collector (Appeals) holding that bakelite sheets of paper, Aluminium Clad Entry Foil and Back-up Laminates, Tungston Carbide/Solid Carbide Drill bits, Routers, Screen Mesh of Polyester/Nylon/Steel/Metalised Polyester (Bolting Cloth), Adhesive Tapes, Plastic Backed in rolls or strip form, Acid Degreaser-Coprolite H-83 and Cuprolite x-84, Solder Cleaning Salt Solution, Glazed Transparent Paper, Gummed or Adhesive Paper and Paper boards, are not eligible for the benefit of input duty credit under the Modvat scheme. The appellants have filed the present appeal.2. The facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of printed circuit boards falling under sub-heading 8534.00. The appellants purchased a number of inputs and started availing Modvat credit of duty on the inputs after filing declaration under Rule 57G. The department alleged that 42 inputs described in the Order-in-Original where not inputs vised in or in relation ...

Bharat Sales Corpn. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC300Tri(Delhi)

1. One appeal of M/s. Bharat Sales Corporation, Calcutta and the other of Revenue, involving common question of facts and law, were heard together and are being disposed off through this common order. The short question falling for decision is whether filter elements claimed to be parts of "Agglomerators" .by M/s. Bharat Sales Corporation are classifiable under 8421.29, as claimed by them, or under CTH 8421.23, as claimed by Revenue.2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Consultant submits that the imported element is an integral part of Agglomerator which is neither a filter nor for internal combusion engine. In their case this oil filter only filters sendiments in the oil and is part of a device known as agglomerators which is not a part of IC engine but is placed away from it, anterior to oil pump. The function of this agglomerator is to combine efficient fuel filtration with water separation and collection of water at the base. Such agglomerator would be classifiable under chapter...

Texmo Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT656TriDel

1. Appellant is absent and is unrepresented in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri Negi, SDR and perused the papers.2. Assistant Collector held that appellant would be liable to pay excise duty of one per cent collected as charity. Collector (Appeals) having confirmed the order, the present appeal is filed. Though the price list disclosed discount of 17%, invoices showed deduction of 18%.Invoices also showed addition of one per cent as charity. Lower authorities have held that one per cent collected as charity should be added to the assessable value. That such receipt shown in invoices will not form part of the normal price has been accepted by the Tribunal in Mohan & Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1987 (30) E.L.T. 624. This decision has been followed by us in number of other appeals. We, therefore, hold that one per cent collected for charity is not to be treated as part of the price for the purpose of addition to the assessable value. Impugned orders are accordin...

Hospita India (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT688TriDel

1. This is a stay application filed by M/s. Hospita India (P) Ltd. being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original dated 29-4-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, new Custom House, New Delhi. The matter relates to the eligibility of the hospital equipments imported by the applicants under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988.2. We have heard the stay application when Shri V. Sridharan, learned advocate appeared for the applicant. Shri K.K. Jha, SDR represented the respondent/Revenue. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner of Customs had denied the exemption on the ground that the conditions as mentioned in the table annexed to the said Notification, dated 1-3-1988 had not been fulfilled. He had referred to Para 2 of the table which is reproduced below :- "2. All such hospitals as may be certified by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in each case, to be run for providing medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment not o...