Delhi Court November 1996 Judgments

Rajendra Kumar Poonja Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. These 12 appeals have been filed against 5 adjudication orders under which various penalties have been imposed on the appellant for contravention of the provisions as indicated below : Appeal No. Name of Appellant Provision contravened Penalty Amount 7/96 Rajendra Kumar Poonja S. 9(1)(a) 7,000 r/w 64(2) 8/96 -do- -do- 7,000 9/96 -do- -do- 8,000 10/96 -do- -do- 22,000 11/96 -do- -do- 22,000 370/95 Nanak S. Khanuja S. 9(1)(a) 10,000 371/95 Harvinder S. Khanuja -do- 7,000 372/95 Gopal Krishna Agarwal -do- 7,000 373/95 Narendra Khanuja -do- 7,000 Appeal No. Name of Appellant Provision contravened Penalty Amount 374/95 Narendra Khanuja S. 9(1)(a) 12,000 375/95 Vijay Kumar Jain -do- 7,000 376/95 -do- -do- 8,000 2. Except for the name of the parties and the amount involved in the alleged contravention, all these appeals arise out of similar facts and involve common issues. It is, therefore, convenient to dispose of all these appeals by a common order. 3. The applications for dispensing wi...

Saraswati Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT396TriDel

1. The present appeal arises out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner who has confiscated 137 pieces of Fly Wheel Magnetos with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 38,000/-and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-.2. The goods have been confiscated on the ground that they were meant for removal clandestinely without payment of duty. The goods were found lying in BSR on 14-2-1994 when the Central Excise officers visited the appellants' factory. The appellants' Manager (Finance) had tendered a statement on the spot explaining that the reason for non-entry of 137 pieces of fly wheel magnetos was due to the non-availability of staff i.e. Dealing hand, due to curfew and disturbances in the city of Kanpur for several days. The appellants in the reply to the show cause notice, stated that the goods were not yet ready for entry in the RG 1 as certain tests had to be carried out on them an...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Print OrigIn Company

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT180TriDel

1. This is a deptt's appeal filed with reference to the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 27-3-1986.2. It was observed from the records that the respondents have waived personal hearing and prayed that the appeal may be decided on merits taking into account their written submission.3. We have perused the written submission of the respondents herein and heard the ld. SDR.4. The ld. DR stated that the respondents are manufacturers of electric motors.5. They had submitted a Classification List wherein they had claimed exemption under Notification No. 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 (as amended) in respect of such motors.6. The assessees had further declared that they were manufacturing electric motors up to April, 1982 on behalf of M/s. Automatic Electric Ltd. (AEL), Thana and the A.C. vide his order dated 10-9-1980 had also decided that clearances of M/s. AEL, Thana, should be included in the value of clearances of M/s. Print Origin & Co., for determining eligibility to Notific...

C.K. Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT798TriDel

1. These two appeals involved the same set of facts and are therefore, disposed of together by this common order.2. The appellants imported KAWA Brand Cinematographic Projector Lens.The goods were assessed to duty under Heading 9002.11 of CTA. The appellants filed a refund claim seeking reclassification under [Heading] 98.06 read with Notification No. 69/87 and No. 96/86. The Assistant Collector held that the goods were classifiable under Heading 9002.11 and since the Notification did not cover this Tariff Item, the refund claim merited rejection. In his order, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the classification suggested by the appellants under Heading 98.06 on the ground that they were parts of projectors but denied the benefit of Notification No. 69/87 on the observations that 'lens' being articles of glass were excluded from the benefit of the Notification vide Clause (xiv) of the proviso to the Notification. The two appeals are against the common order dated 12-9-1989 of the Coll...

Mamta Wadhawan Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT807TriDel

1. The appellants who manufactures decorative fountains under the name of Rainbow Fountains, imported 'Fountain Submersible Pumps, Fountain Nozzles and Fountain Sculpture' vide Bill of Entry dated 16-1-1996. The department was of the view that clearance of these goods could not be permitted under OGL as these are consumer durables/accessories thereof.The Adjudicating authority (Additional Commissioner) confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- upon the importers.2. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the order of the Additional Collector holding that the Submersible pumps are complete items to be used as such in the fountains and are to be treated as consumer goods which required a licence for their import. She also held that nozzles for fountains are also similarly not permissible for import without a licence as they are accessories for consumer goods.Hence this appeal.3. I have h...

Collr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Shri Jagdish Oil Industry Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT633TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by the Collector against the orders-in-appeal dated 27-6-1990 passed by Collector (Appeals), Ahmedabad.2. Learned DR stated that a common issue is involved in both these cases and therefore, they may be heard together. The respondents are manufacturer of hardened oil. In one of the cases, the oil is rice bran oil and in other case, the oil is the inedible groundnut oil. Both are in the nature of industrial oils. The issue of their classification has already been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 290 (Tribunal).3. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already held that such industrial oils continue to remain classifiable under Item 12 in spite of their being subjected to hardening process, the issue could be treated as a settled one. It was the Department's contention that the Notification No. 115/75 allowed the benefit of exemption only in r...

Canara Bank Vs. Nandi Gas Distributors and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]91CompCas203(Delhi)

Usha Mehra J. 1. By the impugned order dated 18th March, 1994, the Civil Judge, Delhi, dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 6, rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on the ground that if the amendment is allowed, it would amount to withdrawing the admission already made. Moreover, it would amount to setting up of a new cause. 2. Briefly the relevant facts for determination of this petition are that the petitioner, a nationalised bank, filed a suit for recovery of an amount against Nandi Gas Distributors, a sole proprietorship concern, as well as against the guarantors. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1-proprietary concern, took a term loan of Rs. 15,000 on 12th February, 1984. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 stood co-obligants. With the proprietor they also executed a pronote as well as take delivery letter to DPN. The hypothecation deed was also executed by the proprietary concern. Respondent No. 1 acknowledged the debts and the security. The loan was payable by...

Shri Ram Bearings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT184TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against order in Appeal No. CAL-CUS-667/87, dated 30-3-1987 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.2. The Appellants imported one Radial Clearance checking machine instrument with electronic measuring and control system. The goods were assessed to duty under Chapter Heading 9031.18 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Their claim for concessional rate of duty under Notification No.161/86-Cus. under Item 4A of the aforesaid Notification was rejected.Collector (Appeals) upheld this order. Hence this appeal.3. Arguing for the appellants the Ld. Counsel submits that their claim for concessional rate of duty under Notification No.l61/86-Cus. was rejected on the ground that the impugned goods are not purely radial checking machine as indicated under SI. No. 4-A of the Notification No.161 /86-Cus. but are measuring instruments. In fact while measuring radial clearance the basic function is only checking of radial clearance and therefore it cannot held to be anything e...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modi Xerox Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT214TriDel

1. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut has filed this Reference Application under Section 35G of Central Excise Act seeking the following question to be referred to the High Court as question of law arising from the Tribunal's Order No. A/1244/96-NB, dated 23-4-1996 : Whether Modvat Credit can be allowed on capital goods which are not mentioned in the Explanation (a) to (c) of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 or which are contrary to the spirit of the Modvat Rules framed under Notification 4/94, dated 1-3-1994.2. The facts involved in the matter, as considered in the Tribunal's order which has given rise to the present Reference Application are narrated below.3. The respondents are manufacturers of photo-copiers and had taken Modvat credit in respect of Chilled Water Coil and Weighing Machine under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. This was disallowed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rampur vide his Order-in-Original dated 6-1-1995 On the ground that these ...

Neelam Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT334TriDel

1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 27-6-1989 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. By this order ld. Collector (Appeals) has rejected the claim of the appellants for classification of the imported machines described in the Bill of Entry as cloth cutting machine with spare parts for maintenance under Chapter Heading 8451.50 along with benefit of the Notification No. 46/78-Cus. or 16/85-Cus. in terms of Sl. No. 26. The ld. Collector has held that machine for cutting of textile fabrics is classifiable under Heading 8451.50 and that would imply that the work is performed by the machine without any manual effort even though power driven, it would go out of the ambit of Heading 8451. He has further held that the machine is designed for cutting textile fabrics and it would not require manual effort also. He further held that the manual effort is signified by the presence of the handle operating as well as certain handle and it is necessary because, for the manufactu...