Delhi Court September 1996 Judgments

Component Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT225TriDel

1. Appellant, claiming to be a manufacturer of photo copying machines, imported under OGL several consignments of toners, developers and photo conductor drums said to be either consumables or components of photo copying machines in the purported capacity as an actual user and declared certain values which were accepted and on that basis goods were cleared on payment of duty. Subsequent investigation showed that the appellant was not engaged in the manufacture of photo copying machines and was not an actual user of the imported articles and, therefore, there was violation of actual user conditions regarding consumables and drum (components) and also violation of requirement of specific licence in regard to the drum (component) which was a restricted item under item 470 of Appendix 3 Part A of 1985-88 Policy.Investigation also showed that there was gross undervaluation in the import documents. Investigation also showed that the invoices produced were not really by the Singapore supplier...

Bengal Lamps Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Exicse

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT686TriDel

1. In both these appeals common question of law and facts are involved for disposal as per law.2. In Appeal No. 2137/87-B, the Collector has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 49,656.92 in respect of Electric Patty fittings that have been manufactured by the appellants under Tariff Item 68.3. In Appeal No. 2138 /87-B, the Collector has confirmed an amount of Rs. 88,706.94 on Electric chokes and starters manufactured by the appellants under Tariff Item 61.4. He admitted the fact in this case that the appellants were getting these goods from the independent manufacturers affixing the brand name "Bengal". The department has proceeded against the appellant in terms of Notification No. 305/77, dated 5-11-1977 they became the manufacturers of such goods and having failed to pay the duty by furnishing the relevant details under the Act, therefore, they are liable to pay the duty for the extended period from 1-7-1980 to 30-6-1983 in both the cases.5. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Advocate sta...

Collector of C.E. Vs. India Gelatine and Chemical

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT425TriDel

1. The respondents in this case manufacture Di Calcium phosphate Animal Feed Grade. During the process chemical waste, namely, dust, sludge and sinews came into existence. The respondents were clearing such waste products on payment of duty during the period February, 1984 to May. In June, 1984 they filed refund claim on the ground that the goods were not excisable. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim holding that the goods were marketable and that they were having distinct characters and usage; thus, making them "goods" in terms of the Central Excise Law. He further held that the goods did not merit exemption under Notification No. 55/75, dated 1-3-1975. The Collector (Appeals) relying upon the following judgments held that such waste was not manufactured products and did not attract duty.Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, --1987 (31) E.L.T. 748 (Tri.); (2) Final Order No. 628 to 629/89-C dated 25-10-1989 passed by CEGAT in the case of Cynamide In...

B.K. Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT285TriDel

1. By the captioned appeals the appellants have agitated the classification of the product described by them as Cover Paper. The appellants have claimed that their product was correctly classifiable under sub-heading 4820.00 and not under sub-heading 4805.90 as held by the Revenue Authorities.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cover paper in addition to other products. They filed Classification list effective from 24-11-1988 and claiming the classification of the product 'cover paper' under sub-heading 4820.00.The A.C. approved the Classification list. The appellants filed another Classification list effective from 1-3-1989 and claimed the classification of cover paper under sub-heading 4820.00 and also claimed exemption under Notification No. 43/86, dated 10-2-1986. A.C.however, approved this Classification list classifying their product under sub-heading 4805.90, disallowing the exemption under Notification No. 43/86 and asking the app...

Chander Mohan Vs. Airports Authority of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)171; 64(1996)DLT213; 1996(39)DRJ777

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition is directed against respondents I and 2 for quashing the contract which the said respondents have allegedly entered into with respondent No.4 for display of Glow Signs and Hoardings in Departure Hall, Jaipur Airport, Jaipur without following the prescribed and established tendering procedure. (2) The petitioner is the sole proprietor of Chand Associates, a proprietory concern carrying on the business of putting advertisement hoardings and other allied hoardings and has been carrying on the said business in major cities of India. It is further alleged that the petitioner has been getting awards from various Government, public sector and private sector organisations for displaying their advertisement hoardings and to put up glow signs for last more than 5 years. Respondent No.1 is a body constituted under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and is responsible for running and managing the airports situated in the country. Respondent No.2 is th...

Shanti NaraIn Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996RLR440

Mahinder Narain, J.(1) Rule B B. No reply has been filed to the writ petition, but the petition is stated to be the same as in Civil Writ Petition No. 3606 of 1995. We have heard the parties.(2) Contention of the petitioner that they have not been paid compensation for the acquisition of the land, is not disputed in the reply. In our view, there can be no acquisition without the payment of the compensation which is payable upon making of the award. In this case, the land was notified for acquisition by notification dated 13.11.59u/S 4 of Land Acquisition Act. Vide Award No. 20-B/75-76 (Suppl.) dt. 16.9.1985, market value was determined. Possession of the land was not taken, because, it is alleged, that there arc construction upon it, and the policy matter regarding taking of possession of such land is still under consideration. (3) We do not think that the above said consideration of policy can be an excuse for the breach of law for acquisition of land. (4) No person can be deprived of...

Rajiv Malhotra Vs. Raj Chopra and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This order will dispose of both the above titled complaints as questions of facts and law raised are identical. The facts, as gathered from the records, are that Smt. Satyawati Dhawan is the owner of plot No. 6, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi. She entered into an agreement with M/s. Competent Builders, hereinafter referred to as the Builders. By virtue of the said agreement and the Power of Attorney, the builders were empowered to sell "space" on ownership basis in the proposed mult-storyed building which the builders were to construct on the said plot. It may be mentioned here that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 herein are partners of the said builder's firm. Rajiv Malhotra (complainant in Complaint Case No. C-12 of 1991) entered into an agreement on 10.9.79 with the builders for the allotment of residential flat No. 203 on second floor. As per allotment letter, Rajiv Malhotra was allotted covered area of 1700 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs. 245/- per square ft...

Tisco Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT211TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. TISCO, the short point for our consideration is, whether the goods such as pick axes, beaters, powrah/hoe/spade, shovels and crow-bras etc. which are not exclusively used for agricultural purposes, but are capable of use in other activities, civil construction etc. are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975. The goods mentioned above were classifiable under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Under exemption Notification No. 55/75-C.E., among others, the agricultural implements and parts thereof were exempted from excise duty. The exemption under this notification was, however, not available to power-operated agricultural implements and parts thereof, and (ii) implements designed for use as attachments with tractors or power tillers and parts thereof. The exemption was denied to these products on the ground that they were not exclusively used for agricultural purposes, but were capable of use and are actually bein...

Hyderabad Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT431TriDel

1. Appeal No. E/2808/87-D arises out of findings Of the lower authorities holding that re-assessment of the goods in dispute under T.I. 25 of the erstwhile CET is untenable and therefore rejected the refund claim. Appeal No. 2809/87-D arises because of rejection of refund claim of the Appellants on the ground that the goods are not classifiable under sub-heading 7212.00 but are correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8474.00 of the CETA, 1985. Since the issue for determination in both the appeals is the same namely classification of the product in dispute therefore they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of asbestos cement product manufacturing machinery and components and parts thereof. In Appeal No. 2808/87-D the appellants contended that they need not pay duty on corrugated steel sheets, as the same answers tariff description of sheets falling under T.I. 25 in terms of explanation xviii to T.I....

Jocil Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT99TriDel

1. Appeal No. E/217/95-C arises out of the adjudication order dated 22-11-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur, by which he has confirmed a differential duty demand of Rs. 43,18,190/- by denying the benefit of concessional rate of duty of 5% ad valorem on soap noodles manufactured by the appellants herein in terms of Notification 12/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 holding that the goods attracted 20% ad valorem duty in terms of SI. No. 1 of the Notification as the goods are soap for toilet use. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs has been imposed. In Appeal No. E/1884/95-C, the Commissioner (Appeals) has classified the goods under sub-heading 3401.10 of CETA, 1985 and held that the goods attracted duty @ 20% ad valorem under SI.No. 1 of the Table annexed to Notification 12/93 and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner contained in the approval to the Classification list No. 26/93-94.2. There is no dispute as to the classification of the goods under CETA as both...