Delhi Court June 1996 Judgments

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Indichem Chemicals Mfg. Co. (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT127TriDel

1. By the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the order of the learned Additional Collector. The ld. Additional Collector in his order had held that the demand raised on the party for the excess Modvat credit alleged to have been taken by the party is therefore, not tenable and had further held that as regards the dutiability of spent sulphuric acid it is observed that the same is used for the manufacture of fertilizer, chemicals etc. It has a commercial value and is marketable. In this view of the matter, spent sulphuric acid is to be charged to duty appropriately. The learned Additional Collector also held that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the demand raised against the party is dropped.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of acid slurry under sub-heading 3402.90; that the respondents herein have been availing modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on sulphuric ac...

Rajiv Bhargava Vs. Sanjay Goel

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Rajiv Bhargava, Managing Director of M/s P.M. Packers and Movers Pvt. Ltd. purchased some furniture including a double bed and mini rack from Goel Furniture House, hereinafter referred to as the OP, on 20.11.93 and 27.12.93 totalling Rs. 23,500/-. The furniture carried a warranty for five years. Within a period of about three months the ply used in the furniture cracked and came off from several places. The complainant sent two registered letters one after the other on 25.2.94 and 13.4.94 but failed to elicit any reply from the OP. The complainant, accordingly, filed a complaint before District Forum-II. The District Forum also sent a registered letter to the respondent who failed to enter appearance. The matter was heard ex-parte and by the impugned order dated30.1.96 the complaint was dismissed by a brief order with a finding that the furniture was purchased for office use and by a private limited company and accordingly the sale was held to be for commer...