Delhi Court July 1996 Judgments

Haseen Movies Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT659TriDel

1. Appellant imported a consignment of 50 pieces of Sankor Brand Projector Lenses of Singapore origin from a supplier in Singapore at a price around Rs. 379 per piece. Invoice value was accepted, duty assessed and paid and goods cleared. Subsequently, Customs House issued notice to the appellant under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 intimating that there was mis-declaration of value as the value in international trade at the relevant time was around Rs. 679 per piece and demanding differential duty on that basis. The notice relied on proforma invoice obtained from another supplier by another Indian importer. The appellant resisted the notice but the Assistant Collector confirmed the notice and the demand. This order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeal.2. Import documents of the appellant referred to the country of origin as Singapore, the supplier as from Singapore, the brand of lens as Sankor. These specifications are given in the appellant's pro...

Bagpet Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT117TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 9/12-6-1995.2. Learned counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturers of machinery for paper and paper board making. They had filed a Modvat declaration regarding their inputs and this declaration included an item described as 'Wire Cloth for Cylinder Mould (cloth including endless bands of iron & steel)' as evident from a copy of the declaration filed at page 2.3. They had subsequently placed a purchase order on a foreign firm for supply of the same vide purchase order No. BECL/IMP/90-91/365A, dated 18th July, 1990 a copy of which has been filed at page 34 and shows the item at Sr.No. II.4. The foreign suppliers sent the item but described the same in the invoice and the bill of entry as 'Bottom Synthetic Shrink Sleeves' under the major heading 'components for paper/paper board making machinery'.5. The authorities below have denied the benefit of the Modvat credit taken...

Kinjal Electrical Private Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT641TriDel

1. The short issue in this appeal for determination is whether the imported goods shall be liable to CVD under T.I. 33B or 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants claimed refund of duty, claiming re-assessment of the goods under Heading 73.15(1) read with Notification No. 112, dated 16-4-1982. The goods were initially assessed under Heading 73.15(2). The Assistant Collector while allowing re-assessment of the goods on account of re-classification under Heading 73.15(1) also ordered for purpose of levy of CVD the goods shall be covered by T.I. 33B(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff liable to CVD at the rate of 10% plus 5% CVD. Against this order the appellants went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who ordered that CVD is charged under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Therefore, it was a part of the Customs duty itself and that since the request of the appellants for re-assessment of the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 73.15(1) w...

Guljag Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT292TriDel

1. The appellants in this case manufactured detergent powder and took modvat on various inputs. One of the inputs was Sulphonic acid. The manufacture was done on a job contract basis where the inputs were supplied by the principal manufacturer namely Stephen Chemicals Ltd. The principal manufacturer had laid down the standard of consumption of inputs as raw materials used in every unit of production. During two months namely May, 1991 and December, 1991, the consumption of sulphonic acid was substantially in excess of the limits laid down by the principal manufacturer. They therefore, recovered a sum of Rs. 1,13,455/- from the job workers. Somewhere in April, 1992, the jurisdictional officer in a visit to the factory located this communication. A Show Cause Notice dated 11-4-1994 was issued to the appellants seeking recovery or reversal of modvat credit amounting to Rs. 72,114/- on the ground of non-utilisation of the sulphonic acid during the month of May, 1991, acknowledging appropr...

Raj Kishan Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. Ii and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2702]

ORDER1. The petitioner was an employee with respondent No. 2. He was suspended on 16th October, 1985 with effect from 17th October, 1985. His services were terminated on 19th March, 1986. An industrial dispute raised by the petitioner was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court as to whether the petitioner abandoned his job at his own or his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management. If so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect. 2. By Award dated 28th January, 1994 the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in the service with continuity of service but without back wages for the intervening period. Regarding the back wages, the Labour Court has recorded that the petitioner has not spoken even a single word to prove that he remained unemployed after the termination of the service by the Management. According to the Award, there is not an iota of any evidence to suggest that the petitioner remained une...

State Bank of India Vs. Citizen Protection Forum

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that Ravi Khanna, sole proprietor of Sunshine Industrial had two accounts in the State Bank of India, Industrial Complex, Nangloi, Delhi. One was current account No. 3/486 and the other was a loan account having a certain cash credit limit. One Group Housing Cooperative Society called DSIDC Friends Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. also had an account with the said branch of the Bank. Ravi Khanna, aforesaid, was an office bearer in the Management of the said Cooperative Society at the relevant time. On 22.5.90, Ravi Khanna issued a cheque for Rs. 30,000/- in favour of the aforesaid Cooperative Society. The amount was credited to the account of the Society and debited to the account of Mr. Ravi Khanna. Later on, it came to the notice of the Bank that the two accounts, namely the current account and the cash credit account, had been amalgamated by a decision of the Bank dated 22.5.90. As a result of the amalgamation, there was no ba...

Anil Sehgal and Another Vs. Harmohinder Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This order would dispose of two appeals No. A321/94 and A-323/94 arising out of identical facts and circumstances. It will be sufficient to state the facts in the appeal first above mentioned. The complainant purchased 1.5 tonne air-conditioner from the opposite party for Rs. 15,000/- vide receipt dated 16.2.90. Shortly thereafter the air conditioner started giving trouble. The opposite party was informed and nothing having been done, the complainant got served notice dated 1.9.90 under registered cover on the opposite party. This was followed by a complaint instituted in the District Forum in November, 90, The complainant claimed refund of the price of the air-conditioner and damages amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The plea of the opposite party was that the air-conditioner, supplied to the complainant, had original sealed unit of Shri Ram Compressor and that the complainant had accepted the same after necessary checking at the time of installati...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jayana Time Ind. (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT52TriDel

1. In this appeal from Revenue the issue involved is whether certain chemicals and boxes and containers for packing watches are eligible for benefit under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. as amended. The Assistant Collector had denied the benefit. The Collector had granted the benefit on the observation that the wording "used in the manufacture" were of very wide import and were not necessarily restricted to use of such goods as 'raw-material or component parts' as was done after amendment of the said Notification by Notification No. 105/82. The claim of the Revenue is that the watches are fully finished and can be even supplied without packing in the boxes and thus do not qualify as input in terms of the subject Notification. It is further claimed that chemicals which were used as consumable for creating parts cannot be called as inputs.2. Shri Nanak Chand, ld. JDR, reiterated the contentions made in the Appeal Memorandum. The respondents had requested for disposal of the matter on merit...

Collector of C. Excise Vs. Hindustan Cocoa Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT299TriDel

1. This appeal from the Revenue relates to the question whether "Milk Crumb", an in-process material for the finished product Milk Chocolate was excisable and dutiable under Tariff Item No. 68 as it then existed.The Collector relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. -1987 (24) E.L.T. 169 (SC) held that the product Milk Crumb was not only intermediary products but also could not be called 'goods' inasmuch as they could not be bought and sold in the market. Against this decision the present appeal is filed.2. The case before us was presented for Revenue by Shri A.K. Madan, SDR. Respondents were represented by Shri M.P. Baxi, Advocate and Ms.Tasneem Ahmadi, Advocate.3. For better appreciation of the merit of the case, it is necessary to define the product Milk Crumb. The product has been described in the Bombay High Court judgment dated 16-8-1984 as follows :- "The petitioners have annexed an extract from an Article by J. Koch "Milk Crumb : T...

St. George Umbrella Mart Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT699TriDel

1. Appellant placed an order with Taiwan supplier for import of 10,000 gross pieces of umbrella cloth of sizes 39" and 42" at US $ 11.40 per gross pieces. The first instalment of 1500 gross pieces were imported.The appellant sought to clear the same under 5 REP licences which permitted import of items covered by Serial No. 627 of Appendix 3 Part A of the 1988-91 Policy. Collector of Customs found that the licences were not valid for these items.He also found that there was mis-declaration of value. Collector confiscated the goods permitting redemption on payment of a fine of rupees one lac and enhancing the value based on import by another Indian importer of similar sizes of umbrella cloth from Taiwan. This order is now challenged.2. Item 627 of Appendix 3 Part A of 1988-91 Policy refers to "Umbrella ribs and components thereof (including cloth/cover cut to size)". The pieces imported by the appellant were in two sizes, namely, 39" and 42". The appellant has licence to manufacture umb...