Delhi Court June 1996 Judgments

Kaytis Food Preservers Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT526TriDel

1. The issue that calls for determination in both these appeals which were heard together is admissibility or otherwise of Modvat Credit on flattened metal containers brought into the factory for use in packing food products.2. Arguing for the Appellants the ld. Advocate submits that in accordance with trade practice flattened metal containers which have discharged their duty liability as metal containers are brought into the factory. In the factory top and bottom lids are put on the metal containers which are then called reform containers. The credit has been denied on the ground that there was a Notification No. 181/88 dated 13-5-1988 which exempted such reformed Metal containers and therefore in terms of 57-C the credit was not admissible.3. The Ld. Advocate submits that the duty has been paid on flattened metal containers and they are merely reformed in their factory. In fact similar dispute had arisen in the past when C.B.E.C. clarified the matter vide their circular No. 267/56/9...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. P.K. Thakur

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mr. P.K. Thakur, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, was allotted MIG flat in Rohini for Rs. 1,55,600/- in Feb., 90. In view of the initial deposit made at the time of registration, which was to be adjusted, the complainant was asked to pay balance of Rs. 1,46,860.43 upto 22.4.90. The amount was deposited by the complainant on 17.4.90. The complainant was also required to submit certain documents by a prescribed date. The documents were, infact, submitted after that date on 26.6.90. Because of late submission of the documents the allotment was cancelled and the complainant was called upon to deposit Rs. 2,366.05 as cancellation charges and Rs. 2,500/- as restoration charges. The complainant paid both the cancellation and restoration charges on 4.1.91. Further case of the complainant was that on 21.3.91 he asked the opposite party to either allot the flat in Rohini at the original price or refund the amount to him. Having failed to get either of the ...

Decibells Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT181TriDel

1. The appellant is "engaged in the manufacture of computers and office machines (calculating machine with computer) falling under Tariff Item 33D. The period under consideration is 1982 to 1985. The appellants were issuing two sets of invoices one for the machines and the other for consultancy services. The price lists which did not refer to the consultancy services were approved and clearances were made.Subsequently after investigation show cause notice dated 14-4-1986 was issued demanding differential duty of Rs. 1,91,925.72. After receiving reply to the show cause notice and personal hearing, the Collector passed the impugned order confirming the demand and also imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. This order is now challenged. (iii) training of customers staff in regard to hardware and software; and 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no objection to the inclusion of charges referable under items (i) and (iv) referred to above, namely, pre-installation planning...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Printorium

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT432TriDel

1. The Department, being aggrieved by the common order passed by the Collector (appeals) reversing the common order passed by the Asstt.Collector has filed the present appeals.2. The respondent receives duty-paid plain aluminium foils from customers and subjects the same to printing and the printed aluminium foils are cleared to the respective customers. The respondents were clearing the printed aluminium foils on payment of excise duty. On 23-11-1982 the respondents sent a letter to the Asstt. Collector taking the stand that printed aluminium foil was not dutiable and thereafter, the respondents would be removing goods without payment of duty. This led to two show cause notices in respect of different periods by the Assistant Collector demanding payment of duty on the ground that printing aluminium foils amounted to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and the respondents were liable to pay duty. The respondent contested the notic...

Svictor Multicore Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT152TriDel

1. The appellants are manufacturers of solder wire. They claimed classification of cored solder wire under Tariff Item No. 27A(5) where lead was predominant by weight. The cores in the wire were filled with flexing material. The Assistant Collector classified the goods under Tariff Item68 on the observation that even, though, Tariff Item No. 27A did not define "wires", as per the definitions in Tariff Items26A, 26B and 27, wires were to have solid and uniform cross sections; and that the impugned goods by virtue of having cores could not be called as having solid cross section. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector as to the classification holding that any product covered under Tariff Item27A had to be entirely made of metal. He, further held that composite articles of lead such as cored solder wire were excluded from the coverage of this tariff item because flexing material was not a metal. He, further held that as per the ordinary dictionary meani...

K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(72)LC902Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants in this case received certain materials being inputs on 8.9.1992. They filed a declaration for claiming modvat as prescribed under Rule 57G on 21.9.1992. Thereafter on receipt of the documents, they took credit on 26.9.1992. After issue of Show Cause Notice, the Assistant Collector disallowed the credit so taken on the ground that the goods were received prior to filing of a declaration under Rule 57G, and that the transitional provision in the form of Rule 57H as it stood at the material time did not cover the situation and that the prior permission of the Assistant Collector was not taken before availing of the facility of the transitional provisions. The Collector (Appeals) in his order dated 30.3.1995 upheld the lower order giving rise to the present appeal.2. Shri Y.D. Gera, Excise Manager of the appellant company in his submission relied upon a quotation from "Guide to Modvat Part I" issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which permitted a manufactur...

Bharat Ispat Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT536TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi dated 30-11-1995.2. Learned counsel stated that in this case, the appellants had taken Modvat credit on the basis of original copies of invoices as the duplicate had been lost. The Assistant Collector, had however, denied the benefit on the ground that the facility to take credit on the basis of original invoice in case of loss of duplicate has been incorporated as Sub-rule (2A) under Rule 57G only with effect from 20-5-1994 by Notification No. 23/94 whereas the items in question had been received prior to this date. It was her submission that while it is factually correct, at the same time, it is a procedural provision which was clarificatory in nature.3. The system of taking Modvat credit on the basis of invoice had been introduced with effect from 1-4-1994 and the items in question were received under invoice dated 6-4-1994 and 13-4-1994 when the system was still very new and the trans...

Partap Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT188TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Delhi dated 30-4-1986.2. Learned counsel stated that the appellants have a composite unit wherein arc furnace and rolling mills are installed. The appellants manufacture inter alia iron cast chilled rolls. After casting, these are subjected to proof machining so as to remove the surface defects.Thereafter, the product is sold on weight basis to various rolling mills who subject them to further machining and cutting of wovals as per their requirements and convert them into parts of machinery falling under Item 68.3. The appellants had submitted classification list No. 45/79 effective from 9-4-1979 declaring such iron cast chilled rolls, erroneously classifying the product as steel castings and the same had been approved by the Assistant Collector. The appellants were also paying duty under item 68 after the said casting was subjected to proof machining as directed by the central excise authorities vide classification list N...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT79TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. National Rayon Corporation Limited being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 21-1-1987 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay wherein he had held that the charges separately collected from the buyers in the name of washing the tanker are a part of the value of Caustic Soda Lye.2. Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate for the party stated that they are engaged in the manufacture of Caustic Soda Lye. Their buyers arrange for the tankers which are durable packing and whose cost is not includible in the assessable value of the excisable goods. The price agreed for the sale of the goods is paid by their customers. In some cases, the tankers, arranged by their customers are cleaned before the goods filled in them. For this activity of cleaning of the tankers before filling the goods, they are charging a fixed amount of Rs. 25/- per M.T. The Department had added these sums in the assessable value which in fact means that there would be two assessab...

C.C.E. Vs. Keymer Bagshawe Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT550TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is the inclusion of the cost of inlet and outlet "dampers" while determining the assessable value of industrial fans.2. When the appeal was taken-up the respondents, M/s. Keymer Bag-shawe Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. were not present.3. The ld. JDR argued that the inlet/outlet "dampers" were in the nature of regulators of industrial fans and that their cost was includible in the assessable value of industrial fans. He submitted that the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, was not correct.4. We have carefully considered the matter. Under T.I. 33 of the old Central Excise Tariff, industrial fans were excisable. The Tariff description read as under: "Electric fans, designed for use in an industrial system as parts indispensable for its operation and have been given for that purpose some special shape or quality which would not be essential for their use for any other purpose, and regulators th...