Delhi Court September 1996 Judgments

Asian Tube Light (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT427TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Customs, New Delhi No. 20/86, dated 3-10-1986.2. Ld. Counsels stated that the appellants had imported an item described in the bill of entry as fluorescent tube circular. The following two issues have arisen in connection with this matter :- Whether a "fluorescent tubes" can be considered to be an "Electronic" item for the purposes of Classification under Custom Tariff Heading No. 85.18/27 as claimed by the importer/appellant; Whether the imported "fluorescent tube" can be treated as "consumer goods" under the Import-Export Policy for the year 1985-88.3. It was their contention that it was classifiable under Heading 85.18/27(1) under category of electronic tube.This tube was part of a special lamp manufactured by them which consisted of electronic circuit, starter and relating fittings. Such fluorescent tubes are energy saving devices and could also be termed as electronic lamps. They would like to show to the bench a sample and t...

C.P. Raman Vs. Ram Pyari Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 64(1996)DLT414; 1996(39)DRJ91; 1997RLR134

J.B. Goel, J. (1) This Revision Petition challenges the legality and propriety of Order dated 17.8.1995 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Delhi dismissing an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code . filed by the petitioners /defendants (inSuitNo.323/94). (2) The Respondent is the plaintiff in the suit before the Trial Court while the present petitioners are the defendants. Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against defendants claiming to be owner of Property No.C-1A/114-A, Pankha Road, Janakpuri, New Delhi and was living in that house since 1973 Along with her family. There is vacant piece of land lying between plaintiff's flat and neighbouring flat No.C-IA/113-A where the plaintiff has planted shrubs plants and trees and fencing hedges, as alleged by her, to control pollution as there was a drain nearby and to prevent entry of stray animals, hedge fencing has also been done in the front side; the defendants who are also residents of the same block and claimi...

Bharat Overseas Construction Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Kamlesh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This order shall dispose of 308 appeals arising out of identical decisions in separate complaints. The leading decision was recorded by the District Forum-II in Complaint Case No. 555/95 dated 28.11.95. It would be sufficient to refer to the facts in that complaint. The complainant therein, deposited Rs. 5,000/- with the opposite party for a period of 170 days bearing interest @ 14% p.a. against fixed deposit receipt dated 10th August, 94. The complainant surrendered the fixed deposit receipt duly discharged on maturity to enable the opposite party to pay the amount but to no purpose. The complainant, therefore, filed the said complaint which was contested. The opposite party did not deny its liability to pay the amount but raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and the complainants remedy was only by filing a civil suit. The learned District Forum considered the case including the aforesaid ...

Collector of Customs Vs. T. I. Diamond ChaIn Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT804TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector (Appeals), Madras dated 1-7-1986.2. Ld. DR stated that the respondents had imported a consignment of machine described in the invoice as 'Automobile Multi Station' (6 station 5 dies) Nut making machine Model NS 5-6 complete with standard accessories and claimed concessional assessment in terms of Notification No. 40/78, dated 1-3-1978 as Automatic Multi Station bolt or nut making machine. On examination it was found that although the item was invoiced as Automatic Multi Station nut making machine the machine was tooled in such a way that in imported condition it was capable of producing only Rollers for cycle chain and not Nut as mentioned in the invoice. Hence the goods were assessed at standard rate without extending the benefit of Notification No. 40/78.3. Aggrieved of the above order of assessment the importer preferred an appeal before Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal for th...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Sumitan Electro Powers (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT453TriDel

1. E/A. No. 2781 and 2784/87-A have been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna against two manufacturers namely M/s. Sumitan Electro Powers (P) Ltd. (SEP) and M/s. Suman Industrial Corporation (SIC) respectively. SIC has filed appeal E/A. No. 2796/87-A. The Assistant Collector had passed two separate orders against the two manufacturers. Their appeals were consolidated by the Collector (Appeals) who set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and remanded the case to him by a common order. The common order is challenged by the SIC as also by the department against both the manufacturers.2. The manufacturers in these cases used aluminium rod as raw material for the manufacture of an intermediate product, bare aluminium strip, which in turn is used in the manufacture of final product, namely, insulated strip, which is cleared on payment of duty. The impugned orders related to approval of four price lists filed by the SIC and three price lists filed by the SEP in reg...

Modison Metal Refiners Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT292TriDel

1. The appellants herein manufacture electrical contacts of various kinds and they cleared the same either with or without electroplating (silver plating). They had filed the classification list No. 15/85 in which they had claimed that electroplating on job work basis (which they do in addition to their own manufacture), was not a manufacturing process within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector had held that the process of electroplating was one of manufacture and the goods attracted under T.I. 68 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff. The lower Appellate authority also took the same view and confirmed the order of the Adjudicating authority; hence this appeal.2. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits and hence we have perused their written submissions and heard the learned DR Shri J.M.Sharma.3. At the outset, we note that the written submissions filed do not relate to the present case as they speak of refun...

Refrigeration Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT394TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Refrigeration Industries, Bombay being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 14-11-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The matter relates to the classification of unspecified parts of Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Appliances and Machinery. In his order written in the form of a letter to M/s. Refrigeration Industries, the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay had observed that the various products shown as non-dutiable parts under T.I. 29A of the Central Excise Tariff were accessories of Refrigerators or Air Conditioners and were not the parts of Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Appliances. He had further observed that these parts could also be used for other purposes. He classified the products under consideration under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Collector (Appeals), Bombay on the ground that these products could not exclusively be considered as parts for exclusive use in Air Conditioners ...

Niedhie India Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT561TriDel

1. The Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta passed the impugned order determining the CIF value of the imported goods to be Rs. 4,12,344.12 and confiscating the goods under clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Act), giving option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 4,22,000.00 and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 under Section 112 of the Act. This order is now challenged.2. It is now admitted that what the appellant imported from West Germany was a consignment of 1491 kgs. (gross) of rejected or defective textiles in running length. The invoice described the goods as rejected textile (defective). It mentions the weight as gross 1348 kgs. and net 1272 kgs. Under the heading metrage also 1272.00 was mentioned. The price was shown as DM 1 per unit. The GIF value was given as DM 3415.56. Obviously, the metrage given as 1272 was the nett declared weight of the consignment. Copy of the Bill of Entry is not before us, but it is admitted that the B...

Ajay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT337TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Ajay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. In both these appeals as common issues are involved for our consideration they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.The matter relates to the classification of forgings, which the appellants were manufacturing for manufacturers of motor vehicle parts.They had pleaded that their products were classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Tariff and they were eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 174/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988 as amended. The Revenue had classified these products as parts of machinery classifiable under different Chapters 82, 85,86 and 87 as the case may be.2. Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate appearing for the appellants stated that the goods produced by them were not machinery parts and they required a number of processes before they could take the shape of identifiable machinery parts. He submitted that the similar matters had come up before the Tribunal and they had...

German Remedies Ltd. Vs. Harish C. Duggal Agencies and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)585; I(1997)BC60; 1997(1)Crimes421; 64(1996)DLT163; 1997(40)DRJ411; (1997)115PLR22

N.G. Nandi J. 1. This criminal revision application, under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the order dated June 9, 1995, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, discharging the accused and dismissing the complaint under section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. It is suggested from the record of the court below that a complaint under section 138 of the Act came to be filed by the complainant, German Remedies Ltd., a company, wherein accused Nos. 1 to 3 were summoned by the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act. The accused gave an application under section 245 read with sections 258 and 259, Criminal Procedure Code, for discharge. It is contended before the trial court that the summoning of the accused was not justified as there was no legal notice after the dishonour of the cheques requiring the drawer...