Delhi Court June 1996 Judgments

Dr. Beck and Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT732TriDel

1. By the order of the Collector of Central Excise challenged in the appeal, the demand of duty on "Resin" allegedly manufactured by the appellant at an intermediate stage and captively consumed in the manufacture of Wire Enamel from the period 1-8-1982 to 31-12-1982 has been confirmed.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Wire enamels or varnish (T.I. No. 15) and other goods. Three show cause notices for different periods were issued to the appellant alleging that in the course of such manufacture, "Resin" covered by T.I. No. 15A(1) was manufactured and also captively consumed. Excise duty was payable on the Resin so manufactured and captively consumed, but was not paid. The classification lists filed did not mention manufacture and captive consumption of Resin in a continuous and integrated process. The first two notices were dropped on account of bar of limitation. The appellant, besides raising plea of limitation, contended that the process adopted is a continuous, int...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Friction Materials

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT685TriDel

1. Respondent in Appeal No. E/282/86-A and common respondent in other three appeals are absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri Vijay Singh, SDR and perused the papers.2. Respondent in E/282/86-A is engaged in the manufacture of clutch facings, while the common respondent in other appeals is engaged in the manufacture of brakelinings. To some of their customers they supplied these goods with rivets which are bought out items. The price list filed by them did not include the price of rivets. The Assistant Collector passed order directing the price of rivets to be included in the assessable value of clutch facing or brakelining, as the case may be. Collector (Appeals) reversed the decision and held that the value or rivet is not to be included in the assessable value of clutch facing or brakelining as the case may be. The Collector of Central Excise being aggrieved has preferred these appeals.3. Shri Vijay Singh, SDR submitted that rivet is an essential part of clutch f...

Ashok Transformers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT652TriDel

1. Appellant is absent but has sent a request for disposal of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri Vijay Singh, SDR and perused the papers.2. The Assistant Collector as well as the Collector (Appeals) have held that the testing charges of transformers manufactured by the appellant and collected from the customer are to be included in the assessable value of the transformers. On this basis, differential duty has been demanded. These orders are now challenged.3. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of transformers at its factory at Surat. The charges which are the subject matter of this appeal are for "impulse test", carried out not by the manufacturer but by concern at Bombay. Appellant has taken a stand that the impulse test is not carried out as part of the manufacturing activity but it is carried out in regard to a part of the transformers on the specific request of the customer. There is no dispute that testing by the manufacturer would be a part of the manufacturing activit...

Tata Oil Mills Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC306Tri(Delhi)

1. After hearing both sides on the Misc. Application No. 371/96-C for change in the name, name of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. was allowed to be substituted on amalgamation with Hindustan Lever Ltd. in the records of this appeal.2. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.PPM-1080/B-1-546/87, dated 14-3-1988 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellant claimed proforma credit of duty paid on Aluminium Sulphate used during process of manufacture of Crude Glycerine. This was denied to the appellants on the ground that aluminium sulphate is used only as helping agent in the manufacture of Crude Glycerine and not used as raw material.3. Arguing for the appellants the learned advocate submits that aluminium sulphate is used in the process of spent lye treatment to obtain Crude Glycerine. The spent lye retrieved from soap manufacture contains free alkali, dissolved soap traces and other organics impurities apart from water and glycerine. Hydrochloric acid is used for neu...

Daya Bindal Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was registered in 1981 under the Fourth Self Financing Scheme for allotment of one of the flats which were being constructed by the DDA, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party. Letter of allocation dated 8/15.1.88 was issued allocating a category-II flat in Sector B, Pocket 4, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The tentative cost of the flat was fixed at Rs. 2,59,600/- and various terms and conditions of allotment were set out therein. These terms included the following : (i) The first four instalments consisting 90% cost of the flat was to be deposited on the dates specified in the letter and that the allottee was required to complete certain formalities within the given time span. (ii) The period of completion of the project was 30 months failing which the DDA was to pay interest for the period of delay. The rate of interest was 7% for upto 6 months beyond the initial 30 months and thereafter @ 10%. (iii) On co...

Dyerslime and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT720TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 19-12-1989 of Additional Collector, Central Excise. The Additional Collector has confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 4,35,572.82 on the ground that the appellants were not entitled to claim exemption under Notification Nos. 77/85 and 175/86 since the value of clearances during the relevant period exceeded Rs. 75 lacs. Hence this appeal.2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Advocate submits that the appellants manufacture lime classifiable under the Tariff Item 68 in three factories located at Sagma (Satna), Salaiya and Katni. The appellants also processed lime with water to get slaked lime. The Salaiya Unit had made clearances of unslaked lime on payment of duty to the Satna unit and Katni unit during the period 1985-86. All the three units claimed concession under Notification No. 77/85 on the ground that the value of clearances during the period 1985-86 did not exceed Rs. 75 lacs. For the purpose of comput...

Gujarat Machinery Manufacturers Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT520TriDel

1. The above appeal arises out of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay upholding the order of the Assistant Collector by which he has rejected the refund claim filed by the appellants for refund of Rs. 86,841.26 P duty paid on re-glass lining on old and used glass-lined equipment.2. The appellants manufacture glass-lined vessels and clear the same on payment of duty under TI 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The glass lining is a process of setting powder glass frit on the vessels and the equipment for uniform coating and then the vessels are fired. Such glass-lined vessels are used in the chemical and pharmaceutical and fertilizer industry. The glass lined vessels originally cleared by the appellants on payment of duty was received back in their factory when the process of stripping the old lining and fresh glass-lining took place.3. Both the lower authorities have held that the glass-lining is such a process that without glas...

Kisan Chemicals Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT543TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. C3/190/92, dated 11-3-1993. The impugned goods claimed to be fungicides have been held as classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 29.42 for the purpose of customs duty. For the purpose of countervailing duty (CVD), the goods have been held to be classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading 29.42. Hence this appeal.2. Arguing for the appellants, learned Advocate submits that whereas for customs duty, Chapter Heading 29.42 is correct, for purpose of CVD, proper heading would be 38.08 since this entry specifically refers to 'fungicides'. The authorities below have wrongly held that 'Dodine' imported by them as 'fungicide' is only a 'fungicidal chemical'. The lower authorities have pressed into service Notification No.33/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 to hold against them. This reliance is totally misplaced. Purpose of an exemption Notification is to exempt goods and not to supply the norms for classifying the goods. In support of...

Nippon Zeon Co. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Secretary, Ministry of

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT670TriDel

1. These appeals are filed under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short, the Act) against the determination by the designated authority regarding the existence, degree and effect of any dumping in relation to the import of any article. The appeals are not accompanied by any fee. The Registry has raised an objection that fee is payable.Since the appeals are required to be heard by a three-Member Bench presided over by the President, this Bench has been constituted to consider the question of court fee.2. Article 265 of the Constitution mandates that no tax shall be levied or collected, except by authority of law. It is well-accepted that expression "tax" in this Article covers fee also. Thus unless there is legal provision requiring the appellants invoking Section 9C of the Act to pay fee, the Tribunal cannot insist on payment of any such fee.3. Sub-section (4) of Section 9C of the Act states that the provisions of Sub-sections (1), (2), (5) and (6) of Section 129C of th...

Collector of Customs Vs. Royal Opticians

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT283TriDel

1. This is a Collector's appeal against the order-in-appeal, dated 16-1-1995 classifying the item "Metal Temples of Spectacles frames" as mountings described under sub-heading 9003.19, as they are made up of metals. The Learned Collector has examined the samples and also taken into consideration large number of Bills of Entry in which parts like hinges, screws, nose, pads, tips, bridges etc. had been cleared on payment of CVD under sub-heading 9003.90. He has held that in this scheme of classification, frames and mountings of spectacles are clearly described under Chapter Heading 9003. Parts of frames and mountings like screws, hinges etc. fall under sub-heading 9003.90. The impugned goods are metal temples for spectacles, hence they have been held to be classifiable as mountings described under heading 9003.19.2. The Revenue in this appeal have contended that Explanatory Notes given for 90.03 at page 1461 of HSN states "All parts of frames includes spectacle side pieces and side piec...