Delhi Court June 1997 Judgments

Vardhaman Spg. and Gen. Mills Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT253TriDel

1. The facts of the appeals, in brief, are that the appellants imported acrylic fibre and filed Ex-bond Bills of Entry and declared the value which was, however, not accepted by the Bombay Custom House and the goods were assessed at the enhanced value. The appellants filed refund claims, claiming refund of excess duty paid on account of the enhancement of the declared value of the imported material. The appellants filed refund claim and supported their claim by a copy of the letter No. S/26-58 & 59/90 Group-C, dated 6-12-1991 under which the appellants were informed that their declared assessable value has been accepted as assessable value for the goods. However, in the letter there was no indication that the goods were re-assessed. Accordingly, the refund claim was rejected. The Asstt. Collector while rejecting the refund claims, among other things, held that "there is nothing on record to show that the importer has registered any protest at the time of payment of duty nor had th...

Weigand India (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC326Tri(Delhi)

1. The order-in-original dated 4-3-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant engaged in the manufacture of various kinds of machinery and systems such as ejector, vaccum system, evaporation plant, scrubbing system etc. was availing invoice price procedure and paying duty on the basis of the invoice price shown in the various invoices.The dispute relates to the period from 1988 to July 1992 covering supplies made as per orders placed by several parties including M/s.Lipton India Ltd., M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. etc. Appellant had availed of the benefit of partial exemption Notification 175/86. Show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty of Rs. 32,38,204/- on the ground that the benefit of notification was not available inasmuch as appellant was using the brand name of the technical collaborator which fact had been suppressed from the knowledge of the department.Accordingly, the larger period of limitation und...

Hercules Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT400TriDel

1. The instant appeal has been filed by M/s. Hercules Industries Ltd., Thane, against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 15-2-1988 by which the Collector (Appeals) disallowed the benefit of Notification No. 43/75 to the appellants and confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 9,08,805.48 for the period February, 1980 to July, 1984.2. The appellants who were manufacturers of aluminium casting falling under erstwhile T.I. 27 filed a classification list in April, 1979 classifying the goods under T.I. 27 and claimed exemption tinder Notification No. 43/75, dated 1-3-1975. The classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector on 5-10-1979. However, while approving the classification list the Assistant Collector deleted the classification of the goods under T.I. 27 and the claim for exemption under Notification No. 43/75. According to the appellants they were also asked by the Inspector of the Central Excise to surrender their...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Allied Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT252TriDel

1. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the respondents therein imported Hurbrings and Lap film and claimed Modvat credit of duty. In this case the appellants took credit of duty on the above imported item on 5-4-1986. Whereas the declaration was filed on 24-4-1986. On 8-7-1987 they filed a request under Rule 57H for availing Modvat credit in respect of inputs for which a declaration was filed on 24-4-1986. The Asstt. Collector rejected their application on 20-8-1987. Against this order of the Asstt. Collector the appellant filed an appeal before the ld. Collector (Appeals) on 13-5-1988. The ld. Collector (Appeals) considered the issue on merits alone and allowed their appeal but did not take into consideration that the appeal filed by the appellants was beyond the time for filing appeal allowed under Section 35 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Against this the Department has filed the present appeal before us.2. Shri P.K. Jain, the ld. SDR arguing appeal on behalf o...

Balaji Cement Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT691TriDel

1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M.Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant filed price list in Part n in respect of Asbestos Cement Pipes contracted for supply to Maharashtra State Government and other Public Sector Institutions at for destination prices inclusive of packing, forwarding and insurance charges. Price list was filed and approved on the basis of rate contract entered into with the State Government. Appellant had claimed deduction in the price list only of Central Excise duty element. In the remarks column, however, the appellant stated that the prices included freight and insurance and duty paid on freight and insurance would be claimed as refund periodically. Appellant was required by a letter to show cause why the remark in the remarks column should not be rejected and total sale price shown should not be approved as assessable value. Appellant replied stating that ...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. American Refrigerator Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT126TriDel

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, SDR and perused the papers.2. Assistant Collector confirmed the demands made under four different show cause notices. On appeal by the assessee, Collector (Appeals) set aside the order on the ground that the show cause notices were barred by time. This order is now challenged by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.3. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Airconditioners and Water Coolers governed by erstwhile T.I. 29A. The dispute arises in relation to four show cause notices, the particulars of which are as hereunder :- A perusal of the above will show that cause notices were issued after a lapse of six months from the respective periods and would be barred by time unless extended period of limitation under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 would be available. The larger period of limitation was invoked in the show cause notices on account of suppression of facts and this allegati...

Cce Vs. Allied Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC333

1. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the respondents therein imported Hurbrings and Lap film and claimed Modvat credit of duty. In this case the appellants took credit of duty on the above imported item on 5.4.1986. Whereas the declaration was filed on 24.4.1986. On 8.7.1987 they filed a request under Rule 57H for availing Modvat credit in respect of, inputs for which a declaration was filed on 24.4.1986. The Asstt. Collector rejected their application on 20.8.1987. Against this order of the Asstt. Collector the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Collector (Appeals) on 13.5.1988. The Ld. Collector (Appeals) considered the issue on merits alone and allowed their appeal but did not take into consideration that the appeal filed by the appellants Was beyond the time for filing appeal allowed under Section 35 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Against this the Department has filed the present appeal before us.2. Shri P.K. Jain, the Ld. SDR arguing appeal on behalf ...

Simtools Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT712TriDel

1. The short issue for determination in this appeal is whether the item described as "top and bottom tool" in the invoice by the appellants is classifiable under Tariff Item No. 68 or Tariff Item No. 51 A(iii) of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants received certain products for machining. After machining they cleared the said item assessing it under Tariff Item No. 68. The department alleged that since the item is designed to be fitted in machine tool therefore it should be classifiable under Tariff Item No. 51A(iii). The Appellant's contested that machining did not bring into existence any distinct new product; distinct in name, use and character. The lower authorities held that the item described as top and bottom tool was nothing but a tool designed to be fitted in a machine tool and classifiable as tool to be fitted in a machine tool. Shri G.D. Sharma, the ld. JDR appearing for the respondent Commissioner submits that from t...

New Era Education Society (Regd.) and Others Vs. H.L. Kalsi and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order of District Forum II dated 24.5.1996 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to refund the amount stated in the order and pay Rs. 5,000/ as compensation. The complaint relates to admission of Baby Sanya, 3 years old at the relevant time, granddaughter of Mr. H.L. Kalsi and daughter of Sunil Kalsi to the Nursery class of the New Era Junior School, J 12/15 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Arrayed as opposite parties were the New Era Public School (recognised), H 17, Mayapuri Road, New Delhi and New Era Education Society (Regd.), H 17 Mayapuri Road, New Delhi. The case of the complainants was that New Era Public School (Recognised) was a duly recognised school under the Delhi Schools Education Act, 1973. Advertisement in the Hindustan Times was issued by opposite party 2 giving public notice regarding admission to Nursery and Prep classes for the academic session 1994 95. The said public notice was i...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT591TriDel

1. This is a department's appeal filed w.r.t. the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Learned DR stated that the issue relates to synthesis gas supplied by the respondents to the heavy water plant under Notification No.415/86-C.E. dated 15-5-1986. Both the respondents and the receiver of the gas are mentioned in the table annexed to this notification and therefore the respondents were entitled to the benefit of this notification subject to the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein. It is the department's case that these conditions were not satisfied and therefore the Collector (A) has erred in passing the impugned order.3. Notification indicates that the benefit would be available only if the gas is supplied by unit specified in the table to a heavy water plant specified to the corresponding entry for; (a) the manufacture of the heavy water and (b) for the testing and commissioning of the said heavy water plant and such ammonia or synthesis gas is return...