Delhi Court December 1996 Judgments

Prem Nath Diesels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT130TriDel

1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 15-9-1989, passed by the Collector (Appeals) confirming the rejection of refund claim for Rs. 5,94,305.14 in respect of Bill of Entry No. I-919, dated 18-1-1988, seeking reclassification of filters (oil filter other than fuel filter) (for ICP engine) (Int. with M/B) which had been originally classified under 8421.29 of the CTA read with Notification No. 320/87-Cus. The appellants had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987 which was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that in terms of Clause (ii) of the said Notification the benefit cannot be given if the filters are inter-changeable with parts of motor vehicles. He has also held that the appellants had not protested about the original assessment which was based on physical examination of the filter in question and therefore, the benefit will be hit by provision of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Learned Collector in his order has held ...

National Rayon Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT265TriDel

1. Appellants manufacture a product called 'Caristrap' about 12 mm. in width in running length. Under the old Tariff it had been classified under Tariff Item No. 22 in preference to Tariff Item 68. On the introduction of the New Tariff based on HSN, two classification lists were filed by the appellants. In one list, classification claimed was under 5408.00 and in another classification list filed under protest, classification was claimed under 5603.00. After issuing a notice and after hearing the assessee, the Assistant Collector classified the strap under Heading 5603. Collector upheld this classification resulting in the present appeal coming before us.2. We have heard Shri G. Shiva Das, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.D. Sharma, JDR for the Revenue.3. For the impugned goods alternate classifications claimed are 5408, 5607 and 5608. Appellants have placed on record a technical Write up which indicates that it consists of a number of Cords which are held together with the help...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT486TriDel

1. These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Collector (Appeals) dismissing two appeals filed by the Department under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (in short, the Act) against two separate orders passed by Assistant Collector approving five different price lists filed by respondent herein.2. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of electric motors and transformers for which intermediate products, namely electric stampings and laminations are also produced and captively consumed. We are concerned in these appeals with five price lists filed during the period from 1-8-1980 to 16-6-1982. Price lists were provisionally approved and by the two separate orders finally approved. The price lists were filed under Rule 6(b)(ii) of Valuation Rules, 1975 on the ground that Rule 6(b)(i) of the Rules was not applicable. Assistant Collector agreed with the stand taken by the respondent and granted approval. Collector of Central Excise directed Assistant Collector t...

Hindustan Coir Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT143TriDel

1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut dated 19-9-1996.2. Learned Counsel stated that this matter had come up earlier before the Tribunal and was remanded to the Collector and the present order has been passed in remand proceedings.3. It was his submission that the appellants were manufacturing coir products like mattresses including rubberised coir mattresses, etc.which were wholly exempt from payment of duty under Notification 115/75.4. In the course of manufacture of their final product, they were preparing and using a solution for the purpose. This solution, according to them, was not rubber compound nor it was saleable as such and was not excisable and, therefore, they had not paid any duty.5. However, a term of officers visited their factory on 30-11-1989 and they were shown the process of manufacture of the so called compound rubber and also informed them about all the ingredients which were being used.6. Inspi...

industrial Cables (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT115TriDel

1. The appellants took Modvat' credit of the additional duty of customs paid on imported paper used in the manufacture of electric wires and cables. Later, a show cause notice was issued to them alleging that in terms of proviso issued to Notification No. 177/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, the credit should be restricted to Rs. 800.00 PMT. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand holding that the additional duty levied under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was nothing but CVD and limits specified to excise duty in the said proviso should apply. The Collector (Appeals) having upheld this order, the present appeal is before us.2. We have heard Ms. Ginni Bedi for the appellants and Shri Satnam Singh, ld. S.D.R. for the Revenue.3. The Supreme Court in their decision in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works - 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (S.C.) have categorically ruled that additional duty of Customs, as referred to in Sections 2 and 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, is not C...

Rajender Kumar Garg Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(Del)347

ORDERRavinder Singh, A.M.This is an appeal by the assessed against the block assessment order for the period of previous years, from 1-4-1986 to 14-12-1996, passed under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation in the case of assessed was carried out on 24-12-1996, at his residence at House No. 148, M.P. Enclave, Delhi, This search was in consequence of the statement of one Shri Kanta Parsad (during the search operation under section 132 at his residence) that it was Shri Rajender Garg, who was his friend who had, in fact, sold his immovable property located at 39 Chanderlok, Pitampura, Delhi. In a statement, dated 24-12-1996, Shri Kanta Prasad also stated that the sale consideration in respect or the above property by way of drafts and cash was received by the assessed in question' at the former's residence. It was also stated by Shri Kanta Prasad that the brother of the assessed Shri Satpal Garg had assisted his brothe...

Electrons and Lasers (P) Ltd. Vs. Smt. Promilla Menon

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. Promilla Menon and her daughter Nalini Menon, hereinafter referred to as complainants purchased one inverter set alongwith four 12V batteries from the appellant for a sum of Rs. 26,280/-. The amount was paid by three cheques of Rs. 5,000/- dated 10.6.93, Rs. 5,280/- dated 15.6.93 and Rs. 16,000/- dated 16.6.93. After installation, the set caught fire. Fortunately the main switch was switched off in time so that no damage could be caused to the household effects, or the inmates. The OPs were informed and they replaced the set with a new one on 18.6.93. While the new set was being installed, again the same caught fire and a third set was brought for replacement, the next day. The third set also met the same fate while, it was being tested for installation. The complainants did not want to take any further risk and, therefore, conveyed to the OP that they were not interested in going in for the same type of ...

Orient Syntex Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT272TriDel

1. The appellants were manufacturing yarn falling under Heading 5504.They had declared the composition of such yarn in two classification lists the first being 26/86, dated 26-10-1986 effective from 27-10-1986 and the second classification list was 18/87, dated 29-7-1987 effective from 1-3-1987. The classification claimed was under 5504.22 which entry read as follows :- "Containing cotton, ramie or artificial staple fibre or any one or more of these fibres; (not containing any other textile material) and in which the proportion of polyester staple fibre is less than 70 per cent by weight of the total fibre content." 2. On a visit to the factory, the officers discovered that the assessees in the composition of the fibre yarn had not used ramie fibre but had used flax fibre. Use of flax would change the classification to sub-heading 5504.29 attracting a higher rate of duty. The officers seized the stock of yarn valued at Rs. 9,19,269/-. A show cause notice was issued on 12-1-1988 vide w...

Knight Exports Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. These appeals together with dispensation application are directed against Adjudication Order No. 1/Adj/96-DD(KKK)/466-471 dated 31-1-1996 under which a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 has been imposed on the appellant in Appeal No. 94 of 1996 for contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). A penalty of Rs. 90,000 each has been imposed on the remaining appellants in their capacity as partners of the appellant in Appeal No. 94 of 1996. 2. Shri Pradeep Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted at the outset that the impugned order is ex facie bad in law as the appellants were not given an opportunity to defend themselves. One day before the date of hearing which was fixed for 13-9-1995, the Managing Partner of the firm sent an application through courier requesting for adjournment of the case for a month as he was suffering from viral infection. He also appended a copy of the Doctors prescription in support of the application. However, a...

Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. National thermal Power Corporation and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 67(1997)DLT117

S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) The appellant seeks a direction that the respondent No. 1 Ntpc should not realise and respondent No. 2 Canara Bank should not pay the amount under the Bank Guarantee No. 10 of 1990. (2) The appellant furnished a Bank guarantee of Rs. 20 lakhs in connection with supply of steel with Ntpc on loan/returnable basis, in 1990. The Bank guarantee was valid initially till 30th June, 1990. It appears that subsequently it has been extended from time to time. The relevant terms of the Bank guarantee are as under: AND where as the owner in order to consider the request of the Contractor insisted to furnish an unconditional Bank guarantee for value of Rs. 20,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty lakhs only) by the contractor. Subject to such, steel being available with the owner, required in the course of and/or for the performance of the above contract, on loan basis, initially up to such quantity as may work out to rupees 20.00 lakhs (Rupees twenty lakhs only) at such rate as may be fixed ...