Delhi Court June 1996 Judgments

National Starch Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT665TriDel

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether conversion of tamarind seed into tamarind seed powder is a process of manufacture for purpose of levy to duty as goods.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tamarind seed powder. The process of conversion is as follows: "Tamarind seed is first dried in a rotary drum at 100 C. This drying is done of pure tamarind seed and without any addition of any sort of chemical compound. After drying, the tamarind seed is fed into disintegrator to remove the black skin. The inner karnel of tamarind seed obtained is then pulverised to fine powder in a pulverisser and the powder thus obtained is sieved in a sieving machine. The tamarind seed powder after sieving is then packed in gunny bags." 3. The controversy arose whether tamarind seed powder is goods for purpose of levy to duty and also the process of conversion of tamarind seed into tamarind seed powder is a process of manufact...

Electronic Consortium (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)66ITD604(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the first appellate authority and in order to appreciate and decide the controversy it would be necessary on our part to set out the grounds of appeal raised before the Tribunal, as follows :- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is wrong in deducting a sum of Rs. 4,95,739 from the computation of capital employed on account of the difference in tax liability. 2. The assessee company provided liability for taxation on the basis of book profits declared. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax has reduced the capital employed by taking into account the income-tax which has been finally determined on the basis of the assessment. This interpretation of the Deputy CIT which has been confirmed by the Commissioner of (Appeals) is not in accordance with the law and, therefore, the deduction made from the capital employed is against the law and facts of the case." 2. The Assessing Officer re...

Ganga Ram Chandna Vs. the Principal, Doon Public School

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainants son was admitted to Doon Public School, Paschim Vihar, Delhi on 17.3.88 to the VIth class. The school is being run by a registered private society and as stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent, it has no connection with the well-known Doon School of Deharadun. In 1993 the said student passed the Board Examination of Xth class securing 62% marks. He sought admission to the next higher class in science subjects. He was denied admission after keeping the matter hanging for about three weeks. According to the complainant admission to the school in 1988 was done by charging Rs. 1,000/- as donation which was, infect, an extraction. Admission to the XIth class was denied as a donation of Rs. 2,000/- was demanded but the complainant was not willing to pay the same. In order to save an academic year of the student, the complainant withdrew his son after obtaining School Leaving Certificate on...

National Engg. Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT62TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order No. 319-C.E. (Appeals) JPR/92, dated 20-4-1992. The issue relates to admissibility or otherwise of Modvat credit in respect of axle box casting received by the appellant after undergoing process carried out by job workers.2. Arguing for the appellant, ld. advocate submits that the appellants purchased axle box casting from M/s. Hindustan Motors, Calcutta. For the sake of convenience and to avoid the cost of transportation M/s.Hindustan Motors Ltd. had sent the casting direct to job worker M/s.Special Engineering Services, Calcutta for processing under challan in terms of Rule 57F(2) of Central Excise for job work. The Department held against them on the ground that these axle box castings are intermediate products and therefore, they ought to have been permitted under Rule 57J. These axle box castings, ld. advocate submits in fact are only processed castings. Rule 57] would apply to such situation where the product undergoes transformation and ...

Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT408TriDel

1. These are two appeals; one filed by M/s. CEAT Tyres of India Ltd. and the other filed by the Revenue against the common order-in-appeal dated 5-3-1986 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, M/s. CEAT Tyres of India Ltd. have filed cross-objections also. As both these appeals (with the cross-objections) arise out of common order-in-appeal, they were heard together disposed of by this common order.2. We have heard Ms. Amrita Mitra, Advocate, for M/s CEAT Tyre of India Ltd. and Shri G.D. Sharma, JDR, for the Revenue.3. We have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It is seen that the matter relates to the packing of tubes and other products. The type of packing had been referred to by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in his order as under :(i) Thread/Rubber gum ....Corrugated boxes(ii) Cushion gum ....Fibre containers, wooden boxes(iii) Thread repair gum ....Fibre containers, wooden boxes(iv) Tube repair gum ....

C.C.E. Vs. Mahalakshmi Steel Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT427TriDel

1. The Revenue is aggrieved with the impugned order dated 24-3-1995 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Chandigarh. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel Products falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule annexed to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were availing Credit of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished products available under Section "AA" of Chapter V of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They filed declaration under Rule 57G of the Rules declaring Billets as inputs, on 13-8-1993 and obtained the dated acknowledgment. The department found that the assessee took the Modvat Credit of Rs. 53,810 on 12-8-1993 on billets weighing 53.810 MT said to have been lying in their factory premises immediately before filing of the declaration and without making any application to the adjudicational Assistant Collector of Central Excise, seeking permission under Rule 57H of the Rules. The propriety of which was objected to by the De...

Classic Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT103TriDel

1. The appeal is against the findings of the learned Collector (Appeals) holding that batteries by themselves are marketable, generating sets are on sale without the batteries. When the batteries are exhausted they are either recharged or bought afresh it is not that the generating set is replaced. They are a thing apart from the final product which is the generating set.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of generating set falling under Heading 85.02 and were availing the benefit of input duty credit under Modvat Scheme. Checking of RT 12 returns for the month of October, 1993 revealed that credit of Rs. 6,909.92 was taken on batteries fitted with the generating set. It was alleged by the Department that batteries fitted with generating set were not inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of generating sets and therefore, they were not eligible for Modvat credit. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the M...

Dhar Cement Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT515TriDel

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, confirming a duty demand of Rs. 6,05,414.25 representing Modvat credit allegedly utilised wrongly by the appellants and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh upon them.2. We have heard Shri A. Upadhayay, learned Counsel and Shri J. Singh, learned DR.3. Briefly stated, the appellants manufactured portland cement which is leviable to duty under Chapter 25 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985.The appellants were availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of duty paid HDPE sacks purchased by them and utilised by them for packing of cement. On 17-9-1990, by Notification 35/90-C.E. the benefit of Modvat credit on HDPE sacks was withdrawn and on that date the aforementioned amount of credit was lying on the RG 23A Part II of their account and then utilised the same in the months of May and June i.e., after the withdrawal of the Modvat credit facility on HDPE sacks.It is this utilisation which has been held ...

inarco Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT104TriDel

1. In both these appeals, common question of facts and law is involved, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The assessee in Appeal No. 2724/92-C has challenged the Order-in-Appeal, dated 14-1-1992 passed by the Collector of Appeals, Trichy. By this order, the Collector (Appeals) has held that the products Aprons and Cots do not possess the qualities or functions of pipes or tubes and hence they do not qualify for classification as claimed by the assessee under chapter subheading 4009.99 as Tubes and Pipes of unhardened vulcanised rubber. The learned Collector has, therefore, held the product as having been convert from Pipes and Tubes as the resulting products which are used in-textile spinning machinery as "components", therefore, they qualify for classification under Heading 8448.00. The assessee had pressed for accepting the ratio of the Bombay High Court's judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Precision Rubber Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 170...

Vinod Kumar Nagrath Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. In Complaint Case No. C-472/92, this Commission directed the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from 1.5.92 till the date of payment by order dated 4.2.94. The opposite party preferred First Appeal No. 177/94 before the National Commission against the said order. The Insurance Company applied for a stay of the recovery of the amount. By order dated 19.8.94, the National Commission issued notice in the said application and issued an interim stay subject to the applicant Insurance Company, depositing a sum of Rs. 75,000/- within three weeks. The interim stay was made conditional on the said deposit failing which it was to stand vacated automatically. The Insurance Company deposited the amount and the cheque thereof was given to the complainant on 22.9.94. Ultimately, the National Commission disposed of the stay matter by order dated 14.12.94....