Delhi Court June 1997 Judgments

Textile Bearing (Kci) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT696TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 22-11-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay in reversal of the orders (Memoranda) dated 14-6-1984 passed by the Assistant Collector, Rajkot. The former being on price lists and the latter order on six refund claim.2. The appellant engaged in the manufacture of textile bearings falling under erstwhile T.I. 49 and parts thereof falling under erstwhile T.I.68 was filing price lists under protest. Appellant, a partnership concern, was selling the entire production to another partnership concern. The price lists filed under protest declared the price charged by the sole buyer to their customer and these were approved By the Assistant Collector. Appellant had filed six separate refund claims in respect of the duty paid during the period from April, 1979 to February, 1984 claiming refund of part of the duty paid on the allegation that duty was payable only on the price at which goods were sold by the manufactu...

Shree Ram Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT120TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 31-10-1988 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay confirming the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Rajkot.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of parts of textile machinery falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 68 and desirous of availing the benefit of Notification No. 120/75 and submitted an application to that effect. Assistant Collector passed an order rejecting the claim for benefit of notification and this order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeal by the manufacturer.3. There is no dispute regarding basic facts which are that the parts of textile machinery falling under Tariff Item 68 manufactured by the appellant, a partnership firm, were being sold entirely to M/s. Shree Ramakrishna Industries and Sales Corporation another partnership, with a few of the partners common and the f .ices charged to the sole buyer for different kinds of parts were less than the list prices fo...

Poona Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT715TriDel

1. The order impugned in this case is Order No. 012/CEX/1989, dated 27-7-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters, was filing price lists from time to time and on approval of the same was clearing the goods on payment of appropriate duty. The dispute in this appeal relates the period from 24-3-1982 to 28-8-1983. The Department found that during the period in question, besides collecting as per invoices the price declared in the price lists, appellant was collecting certain amounts by separate debit notes by way of share in the management service charges and the advertisement expenses from the buyers and had not declared these amounts in the price lists. - Accordingly, show cause notice dated 24-3-1987 was issued stating that under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International case - 1983 (14) E.L.T.1896, the amounts collected as aforesaid were ...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. New City of Bombay Mfg. Mills (Ug)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT718TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether chindies of cotton fabrics and trade samples falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 19-1 of the Central Excise Tariff upto 28-2-1986 and under Chapter 52 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, are liable to handloom cess leviable under provisions of Section 3 of the Khadi and Other Handloom Industries Development (Additional Excise Duty on Cloth) Act, 1953. The Assistant Collector has rejected the plea of the appellants for exemption on the ground that there is no notification granting exemption to chindies of cotton fabrics and trade samples. On appeal filed by the assessees, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the contention of the party holding that no handloom cess is leviable on chindies of cotton fabrics and trade samples. Aggrieved by the said order, the department has come before us by way of this appeal.2. When the case was posted for regular hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Shri Haja Mohideen,. le...

Jalgaon Jillha Sahakari Dudh Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT392TriDel

1. Appellants in this case manufactured liquid Nitrogen and used it captively without payment of duty in terms of Notification No.40/85-C.E., dated 17-3-1985 as amended. The liquid Nitrogen was used by them in freezing semen until it was used for artificial insemination. A show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of duty leviable on such Nitrogen gas on the ground that use of such gas was not restricted to inside the factory but that gas was cleared from the factory without payment of duty. The proviso to Section 11A was invoked and specific allegations were made that assessees had cleared the goods with intent to evade payment of duty. After hearing the assessees, the Collector confirmed the demand. The present appeal is against this order.2. We have heard Shri J.H. Kurkure, Consultant for the appellants. The nominated Departmental Representative was not available. Shri A.K.Madan, DR requested for adjournment of the case on the ground that concern DR was not available and that h...

Balmukund Snuff Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT398TriDel

1. The appellants were engaged in the activity of purchasing duty paid snuff in the bulk form from various manufacturers, mixing together and thereafter selling resultant snuff in bulk as well as in smaller packages ranging from 10 gms. to 500 gms. They had not paid any duty on such clearances. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued to them alleging that the activity undertaken by them amounted to manufacture of snuff on which duty was payable. After hearing the assessee the Additional Collector vide his impugned order confirmed the demand for duty amounting to Rs. 33,615/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,000/- on the appellants. The present appeal is against this order.2. The appellants desired disposal on merits. In their written submissions, it was claimed that panchnama shows seizure of packed snuff each packages weighing 500 gms. It is claimed that normally a consumer would buy snuff in packings of 10 gms. or 20 gms. or at the most 50 gms. But that a container of 500 gms....

Vindhya Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT298TriDel

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 10-4-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise whereby he confirmed the demand of Rs. 86,927.40 on the steel structural and cement blocks manufactured by the appellant during the period from 1-3-1986 to 30-4-1988 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with provisions of Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the appellant constructed a godown and store within their factory premises. For construction of those godowns and stores they fabricated cement blocks with their labour and from the material supplied by appellants and these cement blocks were fabricated within the appellant's factory premises. The appellants also fabricated steel item by cutting angles and other shapes and sections of steel into required sizes, drilling and punching h...

Asa Ram Mukand Lal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee is aggrieved against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi, dt. 1st June, 1993, pertaining to asst. yr. 1988-89 mainly on the ground of initiation of reassessment proceedings under s. 147(a) and making an addition of Rs. 2,50,000.2. In this case the original assessment was completed at total income of Rs. 2,57,821 as against total income of Rs. 2,40,420 declared by the assessee. The return declaring the said income was filed along with the audit report under S. 44AB.In response to notice issued under s. 143(2) the learned counsel for the assessee had appeared from time to time and filed details and had discussed the case with the AO. The AO had observed that the receipts from Arhat were better in this year and he completed the assessment, as aforesaid.2.1. The AO issued a letter dt. 21st February, 1991 along with the notice under s. 148 intimating the assessee that the loan of Rs. 2,50,000 taken from Shri Murlidhar was not genuine and that the assessee had introduced h...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Plastic Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT841TriDel

1. The short point for our consideration in this appeal is whether item "bobbins", manufactured by the respondents, is classifiable as articles of plastic, as claimed by the party of item to be classifiable under T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Tariff as per the Department.2. When the case was posted for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of the fact that notice of hearing has been issued to them. On going through the issue involved in this case, we are of the view that the matter can be disposed of as the matter is in a narrow compass.3. It was claimed by the party that item, in question, containing plastic and aluminium, but since plastic dominates in weight as well as in value, the bobbins should be treated as articles of plastic and classification is to be approved after grant of exemption in terms of Notification 182/82. The Assistant Collector, who initiated the proceedings, observed that the bobbins are covered as an article of plastic. They are very special ...

Subros Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT602TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 4-11-1992.2. Learned Counsel stated that the appellants had imported aluminium raw material for manufacture of condensers and evaporators, - parts of automotive air-conditioning system which they manufacture.3. The consignment was received in the factory and Modvat credit of CVD was taken but the entry in RG 23A Part I was not made by oversight of the dealing clerk the benefit on this ground and the Collector had confirmed the A.C.'s order stating that maintaining proper account in the form of RG 23A Parts I & II was mandatory.5. It was his submission that there is no dispute that the goods were not received or used in the manufacture of the declared products or were not otherwise entitled to the benefit of Modvat.6. They had produced before the authorities below all documents being maintained by them which would go to show that the goods had been duly received under the cover of proper duty paying docu...