Delhi Court June 1997 Judgments

Punjab Khand Udyog Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT813TriDel

1. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar. They had produced excess sugar during the period of 1st October, 1985 to 30th November, 1985. The appellants claimed the rebate of Rs. 3,26,798.90 on 16,802 qtls. of levy sugar and free sale sugar. The department alleged that during the period of 1st October, 1985 to 30th November, 1985, the appellants had cleared 15,091 quintals of sugar i.e. 1,817 quintals of levy sugar and 13,274 qtls. of free sale sugar and, therefore, they were entitled to rebate of Rs. 2,61,058.65 and accordingly the lower authorities passed their claim only to the extent of Rs. 2,61,058.65 on 15,091 qtls. of sugar. As against this, the appellants have preferred the appeal before us claiming that they were entitled to the rebate of Rs. 3,26,798.90 on 16,802 qtls. of excess sugar produced by them during the material period in terms of Notification Nos. 187/85 and 188/85, dated 22:8-1985. The grounds adduced...

imperial Surgical Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT428TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 16-1-1991. The appellants imported Sheath and Obtruator and Examining Bridge, White support Loop and Ball Tip Electrode, Albarran Bridge/DC Fin. and Sheath 26FR STD Beak. They claimed benefit of Notification 65/88 which exempted medical equipment from part of customs duty leviable thereon.This claim was rejected by Collector on the ground that what has been imported is not the cystoscope but only parts and parts are not specified in the Notification.4. Considered. The question relates to concessional rate of duty on parts of medical equipment specified in Notification 65/88, dated 1-3-1988. Collector's observations are extracted below : "The Notification, no doubt extends benefit of concessional rate of duty to parts/accessories but subject to the condition that they must be classifiable under Tariff Heading 90 and they must be specified in the table annexed. In other words, the benefit of concessional rate of duty is not applic...

Smt. Tarawati Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)64ITD265(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1990-91 is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) upholding levy of penalty of Rs. 5,11,963 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that locker No. 5533 in D.M.C. Vaults Ltd., Karol Bagh, New Delhi in name of assessee and his wife was operated upon by the revenue under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 3-8-1989 and cash amounting to Rs. 8,12,000 and jewellery valued at Rs. 99,989 were seized. A Panchnama was prepared which states that search at the vaults was in continuation of proceedings taken on 21-7-1989. In the present appeal, we are not concerned with operation other than the opening of vault. The assessee on 9-8-1989 wrote to the Asstt. Director of Income-tax that cash and jewellery found from the vault belonged to him and form part of his current income for assessment year 1990-91. It was requested that the letter "may be treated as my statement under se...

A.P. Bhatnagar and Smt. Nirmala Bhatnagar Vs. Dr. N.K. Patnaik

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. Nirmala Bhatnagar (complainant No. 2) wife of Shri Atma Prakash Bhatnagar (complainant No. 1), aged 68 suffered from Herpes Zoster on the left side of the head, forehead and swelling on the left side eyebrow in June-July, 1989. After about three weeks, the swelling subsided but itching continued. Thereafter she suffered from inflammation and infection of the eyes at times for which she took treatment in January-March, 1991. She also suffered from Uvietis for which she was treated at the A.I.I.M.S. (AIIMS). On July 2,1991, she consulted the opp. party Dr. N.K. Patnaik, Eye Specialist, with regard to the cataract in the left eye. She paid Rs. 100/- as consultation fee. She was told that the cataract was mature and required to be operated and with Intra Ocular implantation her eyesight would improve in the left eye. She was further informed that the operation would be performed with YAG Laser. She agreed and...

Ms. Jyoti Chopra Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA), opposite party in this case, launched a housing scheme called Indira Puram for the development of plots and construction of apartments/houses in Ghaziabad as per terms and conditions in the brochure (Annexure B). Miss Jyoti Chopra, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, applied on 31.7.89 for allotment of a plot. She deposited a sum of Rs. 42,020/- alongwith the application by means of a cheque drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi payable at Ghaziabad. Possession of the plot was to be delivered to the complainant by about July '91. She made payment of various 'amounts totalling Rs. 5,12,070/-. Vide letter dated 19.12.92, the complainant received intimation that she had been allotted plot in Shakti Khand, Sector 2/61. She was, however, not delivered possession of the said plot for another one year i.e. upto December, '93. In fact, the complainant came to know that development work of the plots had...

Kaushalya Kwatra Vs. Dream City Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mrs. Kaushalya Kwatra, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, entered into an agreement-dated 30.3.88 with M/s. Dream City Builders Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the opposite party, for the allotment of an apartment No. V201 in a project called Violet House on the second floor with an area of approximately 113.49 sq. metres @ Rs. 4,407.44 per sq. metre. The total consideration was Rs. 5,00,200 / - with no escalation clause. The Violet House was to be constructed on piece of land bearing Municipal No. 274/2 described in detail in the agreement aforesaid situated at Delhi Palam Road, Gurgaon. Possession was to be delivered by 31.12.88 or within 90 days grace period there from. The complainant paid advance of Rs. 41,000/- and first instalment by two cheques dated 11.4.88. The balance amount was to be paid in 15 instalments related to the stage of construction and she actually paid the instalments according to the schedule. Upto 16.9.88 she had pai...

Sanjeev Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT812TriDel

1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants imported synthetic waste which was assessed to duty on 30th June, 1984.The duty was paid on 2nd July, 1984. Subsequently, on 1st January, 1985 the Department raised a less charge demand on account of the allegation that auxiliary duty chargeable on the goods was not levied and collected and that additional duty chargeable under Tariff Item No.18-IV of the then Central Excise Tariff was also not levied and collected. Asstt. Collector confirmed a demand of Rs. 28,512.40. In appeal before the Ld. Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was time barred. In appeal against this order the Tribunal after considering the submissions made remanded the case to the Ld. Collector (Appeals) for considering their case on merits. The Ld. Collector (Appeals) held that Notification No. 38/83 only exempted the goods from levy and collection of basic customs duty and not Auxiliary duty. The Ld. Collector also held that...

Tube Weld Engg. Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT393TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, dated 27th March, 1987 passed w.r.t. the order-in-original dated 15/16th April, 1985.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants manufacture inter alia boiler components. They had declared the same under T.I. 68 of CET which had been approved from time to time. Subsequently, they filed a revised classification list claiming inter alia that they were classifiable under T.I. 25 (15). The A.C. did not agree and held that they were correctly classifiable under T.I. 68 as boiler components.4. Ld. Counsel further stated, in response to bench queries that he has since advised his clients not to press their claim for change in classification of the above items except boiler bend tubes and elbows, bends, tees and cupplings, and filed a written memo in support of the above submissions. Therefore, this appeal is now treated as confined to the dispute regarding classification of these items only.5. In this resp...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Satya Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT571TriDel

1. The common respondent in these appeals is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for disposal of the appeals on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Appeal E/3638/89-A arises on account of demand of short levy of cess for the period from April, 1986 to October, 1986. Appeal No.E/3639/89-A arises in relation to refund claim of excess cess said to have been paid during the period 1-11-1987 to 31-3-1988. The short levy in one case and the extra cess paid in the other case are referable to the excise duty element of the wholesale price. The demand in one case and the refund in the other case relates to cess under Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 303 (S.C.) has held that the assessable Value for the purpose of computation of cess under the aforesaid Act is the same as the assessable value unde...

Collector of Customs-ii Vs. Raj Kumar Madan

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT463TriDel

1. This is a Departmental appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals) dated 30-12-1994 by which the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order in original passed by the Dy. Collector imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the present respondent apart from confiscating a truck and ball bearings and compressors.2. Appearing for the Department Shri Satnam Singh, SDR contended that there was enough evidence against the present respondent linking him with the illegal import of ball bearings and compressors of foreign origin valued at Rs. 9,83,750/- and 3,80,000/- which had been marked "Made in Japan" and again 'Kathmandu via Calcutta' which were packed in gunny bags/Cardboard boxes and transported to Delhi in a truck from the Nepal Border. These were seized by the Officers of Customs on 11-1-1993 New Delhi. The statement of the driver of the truck, Yasin and the other two occupants of the truck, Rajinder Sharma and Pawan Kumar clearly implicated the involvement of the respondent...