Delhi Court September 1996 Judgments

Rishab Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT191TriDel

1. This is an application for dispensing with predeposit of total amount of Rs. 7,38,099/- which has been demanded from the applicant herein by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division in Ghaziabad in his order dated 29-3-1996 which has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Ghaziabad in the impugned order. Shri R. Santhanam ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that Modvat credit in this case has been denied to the applicant in respect of their light diesel oil (LDO) furnace oil (FO) and Mobile Oil (MO). Credit has been disallowed on the ground that they are not covered by the term input used in the manufacture of final product. The ld. Counsel contented that the very same authority has in respect of other assessee for the same period had allowed Modvat credit in respect of other assessee for the period had allowed Modvat credit in respect of these inputs. He referred to the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 29-3-1996 relating to the ...

Bradma of India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT633TriDel

1. These are five appeals. Appeal Nos. E/1643/86, 2308/86, 2461/86 and 2462/86-A are filed by the appellants and remaining appeal No.E/1905/86-A is filed by the Department. Since the issues are similar in all the five appeals they are, therefore, clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Arguing for M/s. Bradma of India Limited Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Advocate submitted that the issues are common in Appeal Nos.E/2308/86,1643/86,2461 and E/2462/86-A arising with reference to rejection of refund claim. He submitted that he is not representing appeal No. 2461/86-A. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed as such.3. As for the remaining appeals filed by the party he submitted that the appellants have manufactured specified office machine models and sold only to the bank and such type of sale has to be treated as retail and it cannot be said that it was a wholesale price. He submitted that authorities were just not right in rejecting claim of the party as retail sa...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT248TriDel

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras has filed this reference application under Section 35G(1) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short, the Act) seeking reference to the jurisdictional High Court of the following questions of law :- (i) In the context of Modvat credit, the procedure of taking credit as enumerated under Rule 57G follows the determination of eligibility of credit as set out under Rules 57A, 57C and 57E . As such the criterion of allowing credit (by way of adjustment) as per Rule 57E takes precedence over the process under Rule 57G. Whether in this above regard, the Honourable Tribunal was correct in law in holding that Rule 57E is merely clarificatory in nature to Rule 57G (ii) Honourable Tribunal have held that Notification No. 117/87, dated 15-4-1987 as well as other Notifications issued under Rule 57E are clarificatory in nature and hence would have retrospective effect. On the one hand, it is held that the condition of six months limit vide Notific...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Greaves Faseco Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The short point to be considered in this case is to what extent profit is to be added in respect of the goods captively consumed. Shri Haja Mohideen, JDR appearing for the Revenue justified the action of the Assistant Collector in adding 9.03% as margin of profit.2. When the matter was posted for hearing none appeared on behalf of the respondents. On going through the issue involved in this case, we find that the matter can be finalised after hearing the ld. DR.3. In terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) of valuation Rules it is clear that notional profit is required to be added to the value of the goods captively consumed including profits, if any, earned by the assessee in determining the assessable value. In the instant case the Assistant Collector has taken the margin of profit as 9.03%. On the other hand the Collector (Appeals) observed that the Assistant Collector should have accepted the profit as shown in the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account which is 6.7%. He also observed that t...

Kirloskar Brothers Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT354TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 1553/87-BCH, dated 27-3-1987 Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants imported flapper valve steel hardened and tempered.This was assessed to duty under C.T.H. 71.15(1) of Customs Tariff as high carbon steel strips. The appellants filed refund claim with Assistant Collector on the ground that goods imported are classifiable under C.T.H. 73.12. Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim.During the course of their appeal before the Collector (Appeals) they changed the stand they had taken earlier and claimed that goods were correctly classifiable under C.T.H. 73.15(1) but instead of being assessed at the tariff rate the goods ought to have been given benefit of concessional rate of duty under exemption Notification No. 111/82.Ld. Advocate submits that additional/alternate plea can always be taken at the appellate stage and their appeal cannot be rejected as has been done by the Collector (Appeals) only on the grou...

Jayant Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT545TriDel

1. The common appellant in these appeals is engaged in the manufacture of paper wound on paper cores or wooden reels. The dispute relates to the period 1-3-1983 to 31-5-1984. The dispute is whether the value of paper cores or wooden reel would be added to the assessable value of paper which is the excisable product. During the period in question, the price lists or gate passes did not show the price of the cores or reels. Under the invoices, over and above the price list price, the appellant was collecting separately the cost of paper core or wooden reel. When the excise officers compared the invoices with the gate passes, they allegedly came to know about the collection of the cost of cores or wooden reels over and above the price list price. Accordingly, 12 show cause notices were issued to the appellant to cover the entire period, requiring the appellant to show cause why differential duty should not be demanded on the value of paper core or reel on which paper cleared had been wou...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Uttam Ind. Engg. P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT87TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 8-3-1996.2. Ld. DR stated that in this case the respondent had taken Modvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by dealers who had neither been appointed as dealers of the manufacturer nor registered as such.Therefore, the invoices issued by such dealer did not come in the category of the prescribed documents acceptable for the purposes of taking Modvat credit in view of Notification No. 15/94, dated 30-3-1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) has however, allowed the benefit.Hence, the petition.3. Ld. Counsel stated that the Commissioner has rightly allowed the benefit as under Notification No. 15/94, dated 30-3-1994 the invoices issued by - (i) a manufacturer from his factory or (ii) a wholesale distributor or a dealer of a manufacturer who has bought the excisable goods either from the manufacturer at the factory or from the manufacturer's [depot] were declared as acceptable docum...

Dr. (Smt.) Safia Asif Ali Khan Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)60ITD141(Delhi)

1. All these appeals involve identical facts and having been heard together are disposed of by means of a consolidated order.2. Taking up for consideration the appeals pertaining to the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c), the assessee is in appeal for the asst.yrs. 1979-80, 1980-81, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1986-87 whereas the Revenue is in appeal for the asst. yr. 1982-83. This situation has arisen because in the formal assessment years the Dy. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalties under s. 271(1)(c) whereas in the last mentioned assessment year, viz., 1982-83, the CIT(A) cancelled the penalty taking note of identical facts. To appreciate the matter it would be necessary on my part to set out the following facts and figures as extracted from the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 3220/Del/90, dt. 6th Feb., 1992, that being the assessee's appeal under s. 143(3) (sic) pertaining to asst. yr. 1986-87 :---------------------------------------------------------------------"Asst. year Originally...

P.V. Narasimha Rao Vs. State (Central Bureau of Investigation)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 64(1996)DLT173; 1996(39)DRJ142

S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The petitioner has moved this application for the grant of anticipatory bail on the allegations that the trial Court by its order dated 21st September, 1996 has summoned the petitioner for 30th September, 1996 for being charged for offences which are non-bailable. The contention of Mr.Sibal, Sr.Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event of apprehension of arrest by a person in relation to a non-bailable offence, he may move an application to the Court of Sessions or the High Court for being admitted to bail. He has referred to a full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as Smt. Sheik Khasim Bi v. The State, 1986 Criminal Law Journal 1303. It has been held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in that case that when non-bailable warrants have been issued by the Court, it is open for the person to whom such warrants have been issued to move for anticipatory bail to the Cour...

Times Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Kanvan Rasdip Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 64(1996)DLT602

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) In this matter, the parties had reached an understanding. On 25.9.1996, Mr. Vinod Kumar Luthra, who was representing himself to be one of the Directors of the petitioner, stated that the Company was not interested in continuing with the challenge to the impugned judgment and he had sought time of one year to vacate the premises. He was required to swear an affidavit and also file copy of the Board Resolution whereby such a settlement was agreed upon. That affidavit of undertaking accompanied by the alleged copy of the Board Resolution was not accepted as this Court wanted proper identification of the said Director and proof of the Board Resolution. Mr. Luthra took back the said affidavit and copy of the Board Resolution to refile it in the Court today and also to produce the Minute Book relating to the Board Meetings. The case was adjourned to to-day. Today again, there is no appearance. Counsel for the petitioner is without any instructions. This matter has been on ...