Delhi Court November 1997 Judgments

Unit Trust of India Vs. Rashi Dhawan and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondents sent 4000 units of Master Gain 1992 and 1000 Master Shares Plus for being transferred in her name on 12.11.92. 2500 Master Gain Units were received by the respondent on 28.7.93, 8 months after they had been sent for transfer. 1000 units were received on 1.11.93, 11 months after having been sent and 1000 Master Plus were received on 5.4.93, 4 months after they had been submitted for transfer. Regarding 500 Master Gain Units the opposite party returned the same on 5.2.94 on the ground that the signatures of the transfer did not tally with the signatures appearing on the record with the appellant. They were again sent in May, 94. This time the signatures of the transfer were attested by Notary Public. They were received back without transfer in October, 94 with the same objection namely that the signatures of the transferor did not match with the signature sent in the application for transfer as attes...

Saluja Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT265TriDel

1. The applicants herein seek an early hearing of the above appeal on the ground that the same issue namely, classification of Air Bubbled Sheets which are used as packaging material has been recently decided by the Tribunal in the case of Aeropack Corporation v. C.C.E. (Final Order No. 1086/96, dated 25-6-1996) in which it has been held that the item would fall for classification under Central Excise Tariff Heading 39.23. The applicants submitted that they had cited this decision of the Tribunal both before the A.C. and the Commissioner (Appeals) but neither of the authorities below have referred to this decision in their orders. The further ground of early hearing is that the issue has a recurring effect.3. On a consideration of the above submissions and noting that prima facie, the Tribunal's order cited supra covers the issue of classification of the disputed product, we are satisfied that early hearing is called for in this case and hence, allow the application and fix the appeal...

Avadhesh Oil Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT554TriDel

1. Order-in-Original No. 2/Collector/MP/95, dated 9-1-1995 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant was working as job worker for M/s. R. S. Essential Oil (for short, RSEO) for extraction of sandalwood oil from sandalwood supplied by M/s. RSEO. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period from 17-5-1989 to 18-7-1990. Appellant was declaring the goods manufactured and paying appropriate duty. Search of the premises of the appellant and RSEO on 31-7-1990 showed 209 letters sent by Shri Ram Baran, an employee of RSEO, addressed to RSEO referring to the sandalwood supplied and sandalwood oil received without specifically indicating the name of the appellant. Excise officers verified the quantity shown in the letters with the quantity shown in the excise records of the appellant and found the quantities referred to in 201 letters tallied. It was found that in 8 letters quantity of sandalwood oil shown were much in excess of the re...

Sood Steel India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT369TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Sood Steel India (P) Ltd., the matter relates to the availment of the Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid on the inputs old ship breakings before filing the prescribed declaration. The appellants had availed of the Modvat credit of Rs. 20,662/- vide RG 23A, Part-II, Entry No. 159, dated 31-7-1995. They had not declared the ship breaking material as one of their inputs in the Modvat declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On 5-8-1995, they filed a declaration in respect of the credit already availed on 31-7-1995. This declaration was received in the office of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise on 14-8-1995. The appellants filed an application for condonation of delay on 22-1-1996.The delay was not condoned and the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Shim-la, confirmed the demand of Rs. 20,662/-. The view taken by the Asstt. Commissioner was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. S...

Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT379TriDel

1. The present appeal arises from the Order of the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh dated 17-5-1995 by which reversal of Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 19,56,378/- was directed to be made by the present appellants. The issue involves admissibility of Modvat credit in certain capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. By the impugned order the Collector allowed Modvat credit on (i) refractory bricks, (ii) unmachined grinding media, and (iii) C.I.castings. However, he denied Modvat credit on (i) Copper, aluminium, PVC Cables, (ii) Scientific instruments, (iii) Distribution control system, (iv) Rupture Discs, (v) Filter bags and (vi) Static Converters.3. Shri A.N. Haksar, ld. Sr. Counsel along with Shri R.C. Pandey, Advocate appeared for the appellants. Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR, appeared for the Department.5. We discuss the eligibility for Modvat credit of the following items as capital goods under Rule 57Q. (i) Copper, Aluminium, PVC cables, etc. : Appel...

Harsiddh Detergents Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT194TriDel

1. The appellants in this case filed a price list in Part II for supply of detergent powder to the Canteen Stores Department. The value claimed for approval was Rs. 5.50 per kg. The price list contained the following sentence : "The declared prices are the contracted prices at which the goods are to be sold to Canteen Stores Department at Ahmedabad." After the approval of the price list, the assessees cleared the goods.Later by discussions with the buyers, the price was reduced to Rs. 5.30 per kg. The assessees issued credit notes to the buyers. They later filed revised price lists and also filed refund claims for the differential duty calculated on the difference between the approved prices and the prices actually charged. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim. The Assistant Collector held one refund claim as barred by limitation, the other claim was rejected by him on the observation that subsequent reduction in price did not entitle the assessees to a refund claim. The ...

Binny Limited (Engg. Works) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT681TriDel

"(i) I hereby confirm the demand of Rs. 11,58,744.18 (BED Rs. 10,53,403.80 + SED Rs. 1,05,340.38) against M/s. Binny Limited (Engg. Division), Madras under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. (ii) I confiscate the goods manufactured at site viz. M/s. Baghpat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Baghpat by M/s. Binny Limited, Madras under Rule 173C of the Rules ibid which may be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. one lakh only. (iii) I do not, however, order confiscation of goods mentioned in Annexure I & II to the Show Cause Notice as proposed therein. (iv) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakh only on M/s. Binny Ltd. (Engg. Division), Madras under Rule 9(2), 52A and 173Q for breach of Rules 9(1), 52A, 173B, 173C, 173F, 173G and 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (v) A penalty of Rs. One lakh only is imposed upon M/s. Baghpat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Baghpat under Rule 209A of the Central Exc...

Jainsons Export Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT461TriDel

1. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No. 22/94, dated 5-4-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta confiscating 15,240 kgs. of CTC tea with option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs the appellants have filed the present Appeal.2. By Shipping Bill No. 000496 dated 6-7-1993 filed through their Customs Clearing Agent Appellants sought the export of 15,240 kgs. of Indian CTC tea to Moscow. On examination of the goods by Customs on 12-7-1993 before their export it was found that the goods were not in conformity with the goods as declared in the Shipping Bill and representative samples were drawn and sealed in the presence of the exporter's authorised representative and forwarded to the Tea Board for testing, the test report, inter alia, indicated that the samples consisted more of powdered stems and less of leafy matter and that the goods did not conform to the P.F. A. specifications for tea in respect of crude fibre. T...

Vikrant Engineers Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT549TriDel

1. This appeal arises from Order- in-Original dated 24th October, 1989, passed by the Additional Collector, confirming the demand of Rs. 1,07,307.25 and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that the process of welding pipes of different dimensions would amount to process of manufacture and such steel pipes would bring into existence on such process of welding an item known as steel poles which are marketable as such and are identifiable and conforms to the definition of goods and leviable. He had noticed that the appellants were supplying these items as per the letter dated 27-9-1998 by M/s.HPSEB, Shimla in terms of description and the identity of the goods. He held that there was a clandestine removal, hence the duty would be confirmed besides imposing penalty under the respective provisions of the Central Excise Act.2. The learned Advocate submits that the appellants have along with this appeal filed yesterday a Misc. application as well as stay application for disp...

M.J. Electricals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT178TriDel

1. All these appeals involving common question of law and facts were heard together and are being disposed through this common order.2. The Appellants on the basis of letter of approval issued by the Government of India set up 100% EOU for manufacturing various types of Industrial Batteries in Kandla Free Trade Zone (KFTZ). In 1989, the appellants obtained substantial export orders for batteries for which they were required to import capital goods on urgent basis. The Appellants applied to the Development Commissioner, KFTZ, for permission to import capital goods. In anticipation of the approval of the Development Commissioner, they, in the meantime, imported consignments of capital goods and filed Bill of Entry for their clearance. They also requested the Development Commissioner to accord approval for the import of certain most essential items of capital goods. Since formal permission had not been received appellants were served with show cause notice alleging offences under Export ...