Delhi Court June 1997 Judgments

Vima Industrial Plastics Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC913Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 5-12-1991 of Collector (Appeals). The issue for determination is whether the impugned goods declared as moulds are classifiable under 8480.79 with benefit of Notification 314/85 as claimed by the appellants or they are classifiable as tools under 8207.90.2. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry claiming impugned goods as moulds for Foot Bed Forming. They have also claimed exemption under Notification 314/85, dated 11-10-1985. The authorities below, however, have held that the impugned goods are not moulds but tools and the appellants have not produced proper catalogue in support of their claim. Collector (Appeals) held that he could not connect catalogue with the invoice of goods in question.3. Arguing for the appellants, the Partner of the Company submits that the impugned goods are, in fact, moulds which are used for manufacturing the plastic footwear foot bed. A semi-molten plastic sheet is placed on these moulds and the goods take shap...

Neeta Sharma Vs. Reliance Polyethylene Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This order would dispose of two above titled appeals arising from a common order of District Forum II. In order to appreciate points involved brief facts of the case may first be stated. 2. The opposite party were two companies Reliance Polyethylene Ltd. (RPEL) and Reliance Polypropylene Ltd. (RPPL). Mrs. Neeta Sharma, complainant for short, applied for allotment of 500 shares @ Rs. 10/- per share in each of the aforesaid two companies. Along with the application for allotmentshe furnished stockinvest of Rs. 1250/- each valid for period of six months. The stock-invests were not encashed in either case. The complainant, however, received notice to pay call money amounting to Rs. 250/- From that notice, the complainant learnt that she had been allotted 100 shares each by the two companies vide Folio No. 31883024 in the case of RPEL. She sent call money amounting to Rs. 250/- through cheque on 27.11.1994. As the application money had not been encashed on the ...

Kanu International Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC343Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6-3-1991 of Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The appellants imported a consignment which they described in the Bill of Entry as "Brass Scraps Tincoated Label". On examination, the goods were found to comprise of - 2.2. A sample was drawn from scrap to verify whether it was nickel silver scrap or brass scrap. The Customs House Laboratory reported mat the sample is mix of tin coated brass scrap & nickel silver scrap of 61.8% and 38.2% respectively. The Customs officer at the docks, however, did not agree to work out the quantity of nickel silver scrap and brass scrap in accordance with this composition. The goods were therefore, re-examined by the AC/Docks in the presence of AC/Gr. IV and Appraiser Gr. IV and it was estimated on visual inspection of the goods that the percentage of tin coated brass scrap in the scrap was only 10% and the rest of the scrap i.e. 90% was only of nickel silver. The Additional Collector held th...

Modern Syntex (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT678TriDel

1. The appellants procured Staple Fibre for conversion into yarn and subsequent export under the provisions of Rule 191B of the Central Excise Rules. The Department noticed that the yarn manufactured out of the staple fibre was not exported. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why duty should not be demanded on the staple fibre and why penalty should not be imposed. In reply to the Show Cause Notice, the Appellants submitted that they had already paid duty involved on the staple fibre and submitted that since it is a mere irregularity, the case maybe decided on merits. After perusing the submissions of the Appellants, the Collector confirmed the demand of Rs. 14,62,657.70 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.00 Lakh. Against this order, the Appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants, submits that the appellants had already deposited the entire amount of duty of Rs. 14,62,...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Delta Power Drives Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT104TriDel

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 5-5-1988 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. In this case, the show cause notice issued to the respondents demanding duty on Rotors and Stators used in the manufacture of Monoblock Pumps. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise dropped the demand. The Revenue filed the appeal with the Collector (Appeals) and the Collector (Appeals), Bombay vide impugned order also dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.2. Heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR appearing for the appellants. In this case, in the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held as under :- "I have carefully gone through the appeal petition and the cross- objection memorandum. The issue raised in the application is whether duty should be charged on the electric motors or rotors and stators used in the manufacture of monoblock pumps. It is observed that in the case of Monoblock pumps where electric motor does not come into existence ...

Tansi Furniture Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT810TriDel

1. In the instant case the show cause notice-cum-demand dated 4-1-1988 was issued raising the demand of Rs. 11,4357- for the period 1-7-1987 and 15-11-1987. Show cause notice was issued of proposing to change the classification. In the circumstances whether demand can be raised from the date of show cause notice or from six months prior to the date of show cause notice is the issue to be considered in this case. It was the contention of the party that demand can be raised only from the date of issue of show cause notice and not earlier. According to department demand can be raised even six months prior to the issue of show cause notice.2. When the matter was posted for hearing none-appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri M. Haja Mohideen, learned JDR.3. We find that the issue involved in this case has been covered by the ratio of the latest decision of the S...

Chandralok Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT601TriDel

1. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants are importers of various items viz. medical equipment. They imported (1) Pocket Autoscope (fibre optic endo-scope with spacula); (2) Rechargeable battery and (3) Halogen Lamps and claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty for pocket Autoscope under Notification No.65/88 as amended under Notification No. 123/94. For rechargeable battery and halogen lamps, the appellants claimed benefit against Sl.No. 40 of Notification 144/88. The Department denied them the benefit and assessed the goods to duty at normal rate. Against this, the appeal has been filed before us.2. Shri Shiv Gupta, Managing Director of the Appellant Company submits that pocket Autoscope (Fibre optic endoscope with spacula) is a medical equipment; that there is a specific entry for this product against Sl.No. 19 reading as 'Fibre optic endoscope and accessories'. He submits that item described by them as pocket Autoscope is an endoscope and that complet...

Bhartia Electric Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT163TriDel

1. The appellants, among others products, were also manufacturing steel castings which was supplied to the Railways. After under going process such as removal of surplus metal as well as machining. Some castings were purchased by them and were also supplied to the Railways after processing. These goods under the old Tariff were classified under Tariff Item No. 26AA(V). On the introduction of GET 1985, a show cause notice was issued asking the assessee to show cause why the castings should not be classified under Heading 8607.00 as part of Railway locomotives etc. in place of heading 7307.00 suggested by the assessee.After hearing the assessee the Assistant Collector confirmed the classification under Heading 8607.00 and confirmed differential duty also. The Collector having upheld the order, the present appeal is before us.2. We have heard Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate for appellants and Shri G.D. Sharma, JDR, for the Revenue.3. Under the old Tariff castings merited classification...

Metro Tyres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT298TriDel

1. This is a stay application filed w.r.t. the order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (A) dated 31-3-1997.2. Ld. Counsel stated that in this case the appellants manufacture inter alia moped chains and cycle chains.3. They take Modvat credit on declared inputs for utilisation towards payment of duty on declared output. In respect of moped chains which were exported they could not utilise the full credit and therefore they utilised a part of it for payment of duty on waste and scrap generated during the manufacture of cycle chains which were cleared for home consumption.4. The department considered that in terms of Rule 57F(4) read with proviso (1) thereof such availment of credit was not permissible and therefore, the A.C. directed reversal of credit and also imposed penalty.5. The Commissioner confirmed the order regarding denial of Modvat credit and waived the penalty.6. It was their submission that their action was fully covered by Rule 57F(4) and proviso (1) relied upon by the depa...

Haryana Warehousing Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)61ITD420(Delhi)

1. The assessee and the Department have filed these cross appeals against the order of CIT(A), Shimla, dt. 30th June, 1995 on various grounds. Since the appeals were heard together the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. Ground No. 1 urged by the assessee relates to exemption of income of Rs. 8,27,39,992 from trading in wheat under s. 10(29) of the IT Act.3. The assessee is a warehousing corporation set up under the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962. The assessee showed the following income in the profit and loss account attached with the return : The assessee claimed total exemption on the abovementioned incomes under s. 10(29) of the IT Act. The AO, however, accepted that the assessee was the authority constituted as per s. 10(29) and that only income from letting of godowns or the warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities was exempt, but the income from own buying and selling of wheat was not exe...