Delhi Court June 1997 Judgments

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Nirlon Synthetic Fibres and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC385Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been referred to the Larger Bench by the Bombay Bench as they were of the opinion that the earlier decision taken by that Bench in Collector of Central Excise v. Reliance Textile Pvt. Ltd. 1986 (26) E.L.T. 227 (Tribunal) holding that partially oriented Polyester Filament Yarn is finished excisable goods and hence it was not permissible under Rule 56B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules, for short) to remove the same without payment of duty to other premises for carrying out processing there requires to be reconsidered by a Larger Bench as they felt prima facie that a contradiction is involved in such a decision. It was stated by the referring Bench that if by "excisable goods" reference is to the condition of goods at the time when they are sought to be removed, it can be said that all such goods are finished goods since they are excisable and therefore necessarily marketable. The Bench which decided the aforesaid Reliance case had, in the opinion of the referring ...

New India Refrigeration Stores Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT581TriDel

1. The assessee in this case has filed appeal against the order-in-original No. 48/89, dated 28-9-1989. We have heard both sides.2. Appellant engaged in the manufacture of ammonia compressor classifiable under erstwhile Tariff Item 29A and accessories thereof was filing price lists and making clearances on payment of duty on the approved prices. Ammonia compressors are parts of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. Appellant was also availing benefit of the SSI Notification 80/80. The dispute in this case relates to the period 1981-82 to 1984-85. By Notification 80/62 the aforesaid accessories were fully exempt from payment of duty but the notification did not apply to compressors. In other words, appellant had to pay duty on compressors and was not required to pay duty on the accessories.3. Central Excise Preventive staff found on verification that appellant was undervaluing compressors in order to pay less duty by shifting a part of the value of compressors to accessories wh...

Golden Laminates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT108TriDel

1. This appeal arises from the order-in-appeal dated 28th February, 1996 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellants imported the goods described in the B/E as "Glossy finish stainless steel moulds" 4x8 feet in size and classified under Heading 8480.79 as moulds for plastic. The department did not accept their contention and have classified the same under Tariff sub-heading 7210.90 which reads as under :----------------------------------------------------------------------------Heading No. Sub-heading No.Description of article----------------------------------------------------------------------------72.10 Flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, clad, plated or coated, plated or coated with in : 7210.11 Of a thickness of 0.5 mm or more 7210.12 Of a thickness of less than 0.5 mm 7210.20 Plated or coated with lead, including terne- plate Electrolytically plated or coated with zinc : 7210.31 Of steel of a thickness of less than 3...

Agile Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT636TriDel

1. Appellants were manufacturing goods falling under T.I. No. 68. They were availing of the benefit of Notification No. 46/81, dated 1-3-1981 which exempted goods falling under Tariff Item No. 68 which goods were not manufactured in a factory. This notification was rescinded on 1-8-1985. Vide another Notification No. 77/85-C.E., the first clearance of such goods upto Rs. 20 lakhs in value were exempted from payment of duty. This notification came into effect from 1-4-1985. The appellants took benefit of this notification w.e.f. 1-8-1985 i.e., after the earlier Notification No. 46/81 was rescinded. At the end of the financial year 1985-86, the Jurisdictional Officer included the value of clearance made under Notification No. 46/81 also for the purpose of calculation of value of total clearance in the year 1985-86. After issuing the show cause notice and after hearing the assessees, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand for differential duty. This order having been upheld by the ...

income-tax Officer Vs. Islam Mujtaba Khan

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two appeals by the revenue involve consideration of the common point, hence these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2.1 The assessee has sold one shop covering an area of about 100 sq.yd. situation in the double storey building owned by the assessee at Sarai Khairnagar, Meerut. The assessee declared sale price of this shop at Rs. 1 lakh. The Assessing Officer in the income-tax asstt. order passed under section 144 for assessment year 1987-88 observed that income-tax clearance certificate in the prescribed Form No. 34A shows that the sale consideration was shown at Rs. 2,50,000. The Assessing Officer, therefore, computed the amount of long term capital gain liable to tax by taking the sale consideration at Rs. 2,50,000.2.2 The CIT(A) vide order dated 14th August, 1991 directed the Assessing Officer to take the sale consideration for the portion sold by the assessee in the year under consideration to Smt. Madhu Gupta and Smt. Lata Gupta at Rs. 1 lakh only and n...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. I.C.P. (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT133TriDel

1. In the classification list filed by the assessee the classification of "Synthetic Resin Bonded Glass Fibre Sheets" was claimed under Heading 8547.00. This was duly approved by the Assistant Collector.Later on in view of the Board's instructions F. No. 114/18/86-CX. 3, dated 26-5-1986 the correct classification was under Heading 7014.00.The Assistant Collector therefore, filed an application before the Collector (Appeals) for rectification under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Collector observed that in terms of Note No. 1(C) of Chapter 70, the Chapter did not cover "Electrical Insulators or fittings or insulating materials" and, therefore, stood excluded from the coverage of Chapter 70. In this appeal filed by the Revenue it has been claimed that there was a misprint in this Chapter Note whereby the correct word between "fittings" and "insulating material" should have been "of" instead of "or". It is claimed that the Collector continued to read the mis...

Tata Tea Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT572TriDel

1. This bunch of 5 appeals is taken up together for disposal in this single order, the fact being common.2. The appellants manufactured dust tea. Finding no market therefor they requested the jurisdictional Assistant Collector for permission to send the same to another factory under the procedure prescribed under Rule 173L but permitted follow them to follow the procedure under Rule 56B "if the Company felt that the orthodox tea dust was only in semi-finished stage and required further manufacture for marketing." The appellants accordingly transferred several consignments of tea in terms of the said rule after filing requisite bond. The teas were duly processed and cleared from the receiving factory on payment of duty, although after quite some time. Later, show cause notices were issued to all despatching factories alleging that quantities so transferred were not accounted for and that duty thereon was not paid by the transferring factories. After hearing the appellants, the Assistan...

insilco Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above appeal arises out of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Moradabad in respect of denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 39,157/- on Liquid Nitrogen used in the manufacture of spray dried silica falling under sub-heading 2811.90 of the CET during period from April to August, 1995. The lower Appellate authority has set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order denying credit on certain other items such as RFO - Synthetic Enamel and therefore, we are not concerned with those items in the present appeal.The lower Appellate authority has also reduced the penalty from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-. The use of Liquid Nitrogen in the process of manufacture of Spray dried silica is as under : Basic use : to determine the N2 Surface Area in the process of manufacture in intermediate and final product; the liquid nitrogen is used for testing to arrive at the correct grade of s...

S.S. Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT429TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order No. 147/92, dated 13th March, 1992.2. The appellant imported a consignment which they declared as parts of flow meter. These were held to be unfinished flow meters and, therefore, benefit of exemption under Notification No. 172/89 was denied to them. Since, however, pressing into service interpretation Rule 2(a) these were held to be a flow meters, for the purpose of classification, they were also adjudged to have contravened Import regulations.3. The ld. Advocate submits that Rules of interpretation are applicable only to matters relating to classification and not exemption. In regard to ITC policy again these rules cannot be applied.5. We have heard both sides. We are not able to persuade ourselves that Rules of interpretation can be extended to interpret the provisions of a Notification. Rules of interpretation are intended only for interpretation of Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. This position is made clear by this Tribunal through a s...

Jindal Strips Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT315TriDel

1. This Stay application is filed by the applicants for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount to Rs. 14,76,366/- and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- and stay of the recovery proceedings.2. Arguing for the applicants in support of the stay application, Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate submitted that the issue relates to Modvat credit. The Commissioner has disallowed the Modvat credit on Switch Boards falling under Tariff Heading No. 8537.00 availed by the applicants under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the item in question i.e. Switch Board is not covered in the definition of capital goods as provided under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. He drew our attention to the relevant finding portion of the Collector wherein it was observed that "Switch Board are used for distribution and control of electricity only and are mere accompaniments and not accessories of machine, machinery etc. and are not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about...