Delhi Court October 1997 Judgments

Natural Health Farm Products Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT277TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Natural Health Farm Products Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the eligibility of the loan licencees to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. They had a licence to manufacture the said products as loan licencee in the factory premises of M/s. ACE Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi in para 6 of her order had recorded as under: "I have carefully considered the appeal and I find that Explanation (iv) of Notification 175/86 clearly stipulates that the goods manufactured for the brand name owners shall not be deemed to have been manufactured by such brand name owners. In the circumstances, the plea of the appellants holding them to be manufacturers for the purpose of exemption under Notification 175/86 is not acceptable. It is further observed that the Notification 223/87, dated 22-9-1987 which has been insert...

Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT95TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd., the issue for our consideration is whether the components for power plant 6.25 MW viz. (1) Alternator with Controls (2) Steam turbine 6250 KW and (3) Lube Oil Condensing System were classifiable as Electric Generating sets and Rotary Converters under Heading 85.02 of the - Customs Tariff or they were to be classifiable under Heading 85.03 as parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machines under Heading 85.02 insofar as the Alternator and Lube oil condensing system were concerned and under Heading 84.06 insofar as the steam turbine was concerned.2. We have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Agarwal, learned DR for the respondent Revenue. We have gone through the facts on record and have perused the Order-in-Original dated 9-3-1991 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Madras. Under Heading 85.02 Electric Generating sets and Rotary converters were covered. The parts s...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Prabha Engineering (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT370TriDel

1. This Appeal is directed against order dated 5-4-1989 passed by Collector (Appeals).2. The Respondents filed classification lists in respect of parts and accessories of photocopying apparatus claiming classification under Heading 90.33 attracting duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem. This classification was approved by the Assistant Collector. Collector, however, vide application before the Collector (Appeals) claimed correct classification under 90.09 as parts of photocopying apparatus.The claim was based on Chapter Note 2(a) of Chapter 90. Collector (Appeals) however held that there was no sub-heading for parts and accessories under Central Excise Tariff Heading 90.09 and therefore such parts and accessories would be classifiable under Heading 90.33.Hence this Revenue Appeal.3. Chapter Note 2(a) states that parts and accessories which are goods included in any of the heading of this chapter or of Chapter 84, 85, or 91 are all to be classified under their respective headings. The adm...

Motorola Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT624TriDel

1. The appellants were marketing their products through M/s. Blue Star (P) Ltd. They had filed a price list No. 1/90, dated 22-8-1990 which was duly approved on 19-11-1990. Along with price list, the appellants had given their reply to the questionnaire given by the department. To the following question at Serial Number 2, the appellants had replied in negative : "(2) Do your buyers include persons/organisations where you or your partners or Directors or their relatives are owners shareholders, Directors, Partners or others having over all control over the affairs of those agencies?" 2. The goods were cleared at the price shown in the price list from August, 1990 to December, 1991. On 5-11-1992, a show cause notice was issued alleging that they had made wilful mis-declaration, that their sole buyers did not have any shareholding in their unit whereas they had 40% shareholding. It was alleged that the transactions between the appellants and M/s. Blue Star (P) Ltd. did not represent the...

N.K. Chemical Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC369Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellant was having two units in Kota in two separate locations.The plant and machinery of the unit situated at G-41-42, Opposite Multimetal Area was shifted by the appellant to their other unit situated at 14, Bhimpura Industrial Area as they were closing the activity at the former location. An application was filed before the Assistant Collector for transfer of the Modvat credit remaining unutilised in the former units. While they were permitted to do so, the request for transfer of unutilised credit in the RG 23A/Pt. II account was not, however/allowed by the Assistant Collector. His order was confirmed in appeal by the Collector (Appeals) leading to the present appeal.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that their shifting operation from one unit to the other was squarely covered by the provisions of Rule 57F(6) as stood at the material time.The Assistant Collector, however, held that it was not a case of shifting of factory but that it was a case...

Parasmal JaIn Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Chandra, Chairman - This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. SDE(R)/IV/127 of 1990, dated 11-5-1990 under which a penalty of Rs.3,75,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d), read with section 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). Appellants application for pre-deposit was disposed of under this Boards order of 5-7-1993, read with the order of 5-11-1996. The appellant has since complied with the directions contained in the order of 5-7-1993. This order disposes of the appeal on merits. Briefly, the facts as disclosed from the record are that on receipt of reliable information from a reliable person that the appellant has been wandering in and around Ernakulam with certain tube money dealings, that he has been staying in Room No. 305 in Pampa Tourist Home and that he is in possession of some unauthorised tube money, the Circle Inspector of Police, Ernakulam, reached the said premises at 10.00 P...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Impact Containers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1116TriDel

1. Respondent is absent but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. Respondent has also filed a cross-objection supporting the order impugned in the appeal. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Respondent manufactures aluminium products governed by the erstwhile T.I. 27. The dispute in the appeal relates to the period January, 1986 to February, 1986 and April to September, 1986. Respondent was selling bulk of the goods at declared prices and paying duty thereon. It was found that 0.00001% of the total production was being sold to a particular buyer after being subjected to isomerisation process at B.A.R.C. Bombay, outside the respondent's factory. Respondent was paying duty on these goods without taking into consideration the charges for isomerisation. Accordingly show cause notice was issued proposing demand of differential duty. Though notice was resisted by the respondent, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demands. In appeal, the Collector (...

Krishna and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT74TriDel

1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Original dated 25-5-1993, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, confirming the demand of Rs. 2,77,389/- under Rule 9(2) of the C.E. Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(1) of the CESA, 1944. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- under Rule 173Q of C.E. Rules, 1944.2. The facts leading to the confirmation of demand are that the officers of Central Excise Collectorate, Jaipur visited the factory premises of the appellants on 12-6-1992. During the course of checking, the officers were able to seize one private diary, which was maintained by Shri R.B. Singh, Authorised Signatory of the assessee showing clearances of M.S. Ingots from factory gate for the period from 25-5-1992 to 12-6-1992. On the basis of verification of physical stock of M.S. Ingots of Runner and Risers, which was verified in the presence of the said person, it was found that a quantity of 24.406 MT of M.S.Ingots and 12.535 MT of Runner and Risers were found short ...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Rainbow Ink and Varnish Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT675TriDel

1. This is a Departmental appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 7-2-1996 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad by which an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as penalty was confirmed but confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of redemption fine was set aside. The Department contends that by the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly set aside the confiscation and imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation of 507 kgs. of printing ink seized from a Tempo and also 4,866 kgs. of printing ink seized from the finishing room of the appellants' factory. According to the present appeal filed by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has erred in Setting aside the order of confiscation passed by the Additional Collector on the ground that confiscation is not valid when goods are not available for confiscation. The Department has relied on the judgment of Uptron India Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 155.According to the appellants (Dep...

Sterling Abrasives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT284TriDel

1. Appellant is absent but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of bonded abrasives, filed price lists in Part I indicating price to wholesalers and in Part II indicating price under contract entered into with buyer, M/s. Sterling Abrasive Agency and the price declared was Rs. 518.93 (less 10% discount) and Rs. 345.65 (less 10% discount) under the respective price lists.3. The dispute in the appeal relates to clearances made during the months of March, April, July and August of 1985. During these months the only wholesale buyer was M/s. Sterling Abrasive Agency who had entered into contract with the appellant. This meant that M/s. Sterling Abrasive Agency paid a lower price for the quantity of goods covered by the contract and higher price for the quantity of goods not covered by the contract. Show cause notice dated 24-10-1985 was issued stating that there could not be t...