Delhi Court June 1997 Judgments

Collector of Customs Vs. Shriram Refrigeration Ind. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT666TriDel

1. This revenue appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 19-7-1990 of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The respondents imported a consignment of Piston Rings for Refrigeration Compressor and cleared the same on payment of Customs duty at the rate of 100% + 40% CVD under Customs Tariff Heading 8414.90/8414.30. Subsequent to clearance of the impugned goods the respondents filed a refund claim claiming exemption of basic duty under Notification 153/86, dated 1-3-1986 and auxiliary duty under Notification 313/86, dated 13-5-1986. The claim was rejected on the ground that the condition specified under Notification in regard to specification under different tariff headings were not satisfied.Collector (Appeals) however, held that the goods have been specified by description in the notification. The fact that the heading or sub-heading under which gas compressors, of which the impugned goods are parts, are classifiable in question, is not material, since Notification No. 153/86 grants...

Bhushan Steel Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC62Tri(Delhi)

1. All these appeals arise from common order passed by Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. The issue pertaining to these appeals as well as revenue appeals is the correct classification of Hot rolled flat products of Iron and Steel having thickness below 5 mm and of varying width which have been classified by the Asstt. Collector w.e.f.1-3-1987 as under :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------S. No.Flat products with Classified under sub-heading specifications regarding the as1. Thickness below 3 mm width "Hoops" less than 75 mm S.H. 7211.102. Thickness below 3 mm width "Other hot rolled strips" above 75 mm but below 200 S.H. 7211.39 mm3. Thickness of and above 3 mm "Flats" width less than 400 mm S.H. 7209.10-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The assessees have contended in these appeals that small scale re-rolling mills commonly known as Section/merchant Bar mills and their products will be classified ...

Collector of Customs Vs. Mohta Electro Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC640Tri(Delhi)

1. In the above appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the lower Appellate Authority by which he has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector classifying the 'Prime Mild Steel H.R. Coils' imported by the respondents herein under Heading 73.13(1) of the Customs Tariff and directing provisional assessment of the goods under Heading 73.08 read with Notification No. 38/84-Cus., dated 22-6-1984 after confirming that the goods are covered by the definition contained in Chapter Note 1(k) of Chapter 73 of the Customs Tariff Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Mohta Electro Steel Ltd., New Delhi have imported goods described as 'Prime Mild Steel H.R.Coils' at Kandla and filed Bills of Entry No. 96/15-1-1986, 452 and 453 both dated 24-2-1986 claiming assessment of the said goods under Heading 73.08 of the Customs Tariff Act. The importer had vide their letter dated 15-1-1985 stated that theirs is a rolling mill engaged in the activities of re-rolling of hot rolled c...

Daulat Ram Industries Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT692TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 8-1-1991 of Collector of Customs (Appeals). They imported a consignment which they declared as Electric Resistance Alloy (Ferrous Base) Strips. These were assessed to duty under CTH 7226.99. Subsequently however, the demand of duty was issued on the ground that the goods are classifiable under CTH 7220.90 as Flat-rolled products of stainless steel.2. Arguing for the appellants ld. Consultant submits that department v has proceeded from the premise that carbon content was deliberately added to make it an alloy. In fact carbon was present in steel as an impurity and therefore, it cannot be an alloy.4. We have heard both sides. The Chapter Note 1(2) is for the sake of clarity reproduced below :- Alloy steels containing, by weight 1.2% or less of carbon and 10.5% or more of chromium, with or without other elements".There is no dispute in regard to percentage of carbon in the impugned goods. The impugned goods have 14.45% chromium and carbon c...

National Rayon Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1012TriDel

1. Of the two appeals Appeal No. 4401/89-A is posted today. Both appeals are directed against the same order in appeal dated 10-4-89 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. Therefore, with the consent of both sides we called for appeal file E/2071/89-A and heard both the appeals together.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda and other final products, filed price lists in Part I and II in November, 1985 and the same were approved. The dispute in these appeals relates to clearances made by appellant from 10-12-85 till 3-1-86 to independent buyers governed by price lists in Part I. The price approved in November, 1985 was Rs. 5080/-PMT and caustic soda was actually sold by appellant during the disputed period at the price of Rs. 4680/- PMT, Show cause notice dated 21-7-86 was issued alleging that caustic soda had been sold at lower prices without filing revised price lists in December, 1985 and January, 1986, therefore, the appellant was liable to pay duty on the hi...

inder Poly Fabs (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT420TriDel

1. These are 13 appeals filed by the appellants, Inder Poly-Fabs (P) Ltd. involving a common issue and, therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Arguing for the appellant, Sh. P.K. Mittal, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellant is a job worker, who does job work/processing on behalf of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Stepan Chemicals Ltd. He said that issue relates to Modvat credit. Modvat credit claimed by the party on various inputs had been disallowed on the ground that the credit had been taken by the assessee on documents as the document had to be not the proper duty-paying documents within the meaning of Rule 57G, as amended by Rule 57H with regard to position regarding the endorsement and issue of invoice as duty-paying documents. The main objection in denying the Modvat credit is that the invoices had been issued showing the name of buyers, M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Stepan Chemicals Ltd. He submitted that the appellants acted...

General Sales Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee has filed these three appeals in relation to the asst.yrs. 1985-86 to 1987-88 against separate orders of CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi, raising various common issues. Since the appeals involved common grounds and have been heard together, the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The learned counsel for the assessee Sh. Pradeep Dinodia has filed a chart of grounds of appeal raised in the three years under consideration and we are proceeding to deal with the grounds mentioned therein.3. Ground No. 1 urged by the assessee for asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 mentions that the learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate on ground No. 1 raised before him for the reason that the ground was general in nature.4. The learned counsel has urged that the CIT(A) should have disposed of the said ground reducing taxable income to the income returned.5. It is observed from the ground raised before the learned CIT(A) that the returned income was enhanced an...

General Sales Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Del)489

ORDERB. S. SALUJA, J.M. :The assessed has filed these three appeals in relation to the asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1987-88 against separate orders of CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi, raising various common issues. Since the appeals involved common grounds and have been heard together, the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The learned counsel for the assessed Sh. Pradeep Dinodia has filed a chart of grounds of appeal raised in the three years under consideration and we are proceeding to deal with the grounds mentioned therein.3. Ground No. 1 urged by the assessed for asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 mentions that the learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate on ground No. 1 raised before him for the reason that the ground was general in nature.4. The learned counsel has urged that the CIT(A) should have disposed of the said ground reducing taxable income to the income returned.5. It is observed from the ground raised before the learned CIT(A) that the returned ...

Shri Amarsinhji Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT100TriDel

1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing and is not represented nor is there any request for adjournment. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused papers.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper products, filed price list 6/85-86 with effect from 6-2-1986 claiming deduction of transport charges, insurance charges and cost of special secondary packing, namely, wooden boxes. The Assistant Collector disallowed the deduction of special packing charges which order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeal.3. The dispiite arises in relation to clearance of carbon paper.Records show that 2000 carbon sheets are packed in kraft paper and such packages are put in gunny bags. Goods are despatched to zonal offices at Ahmedabad, Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. Gunny bags despatched to Ahmedabad are not packed in wooden boxes, while gunny bags despatched to other four centres are packed in wooden boxes. According to the explanation ...

Bhushan Steels and Strips Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT614TriDel

1. Appellants M/s. Bhushan Steel and Strips have filed this appeal seeking the setting aside of the Order-in-Appeal dated 28-10-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Ghaziabad by which an amount of Rs. 2,24,361.09 claimed as Modvat credit by the appellants was denied confirming the - Order-in-Original of the Assistant Collector.2. Appearing for the appellants Shri Ajay Singh, Advocate submitted that two issues were involved, one relating to the admissibility for Modvat credit of invoices issued by wholesale dealers and other was in relation to non-production of four invoices at the time of availing the Modvat credit but produced subsequently.3. Briefly the facts relating to the appeal are that the appellants had claimed Modvat credit for the period April, 1994 to June, 1994 on the basis of invoices issued by suppliers covered under Notifications 15/94-C.E. (N.T.) and 16/94-C.E. (N.T.) both dated 30-3-1994. In the adjudication proceedings the Assistant Collector a...