Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments

Bifora Watch Company Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC26Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 21-2-1991, passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bangalore. By this order, the Collector rejected the claim of benefit of Notification No. 186/86 for the purpose of Auxiliary duty. The appellants imported five consignments of capital machinery for the manufacture of mechanical and quarts analogue watches totally valued at Rs. 3,10,49,582.00, under Bills of Entry Nos.175/86,150/86,174/86,161/86 and 156/86. They were assessed to duty under Heading 8579.81 read with Customs Notification Nos. 45/85, 186/86, 55/86 at 10% basic plus 25% Auxiliary duty. The goods were cleared on payment of duty. Horological machines and testing equipments are exempted from basic Customs duty as in excess of 10% of value.However, with effect from 1st March, 1986, the Auxiliary duty applicable is 40% instead of 25% levied as there is no specific exemption Notification in respect of auxiliary duty other than Notification No. 186/86 by which all goods are leviabl...

Light Metal Extrusion Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT652TriDel

1. This Appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 115/90-BCH passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that Appellants imported goods namely Hydraulic Press for the purpose of manufacture of seamless tubes under Bill of Entry No. 8590, dated 21-1-1987. The goods were assessed under heading 9801.03 of the Customs Tariff Act under project import at the rate of 30% plus 35% C.V. Nil in terms of Notification No. 132/85.Subsequently the Appellants filed claim for refund of duty in accordance with the provisions of Notification No. 40/78 which grants exemption to certain specified goods falling within Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the C.T.A. 1975 from duty in excess of 35% ad valorem. The appellant's claim for the benefit of the Notification was rejected both by the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals), Bombay for the reasons that goods had been classified under Chapter 98 while Notification was applicable only to goods cov...

Shah and Mahajan Chem. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC626Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellant has informed us that name of the appellant has been changed as M/s. Essem Catalyst Ltd., 113, Navratan Building 69, P.D'mello Road, Mumbai - 400 009. The new name will be served in the appeal memorandum and in this order.2. The appellant imported goods described as "elements-metal fibre filter" of 187 units of USA origin from a supplier of USA, subsequently filed B/E dated 30-7-1991 for its Ex-bond clearance claiming classification of the goods under Heading 8421.99 of CTA and the benefit of Notification No. 169/90-Cus., dated 3-5-1990 available in respect of the capital goods. Show cause notice was waived, personal hearing was granted. Asstt. Collector of Customs held that the imported goods cannot be regarded as capital goods as defined in the Notification and are some parts of filters and as such not capital goods and therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 169/90 was not applicable. He held the correct classification under Customs Tariff Heading 8421.99 and this or...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kashmir Conductors

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC304Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue which has been referred to the Larger Bench, vide separate Bench Orders is whether, for the purpose of refund claims invoking Notifications granting exemption based upon total value /quantity of clearances during a financial year, the relevant date for the purpose of a claim for refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be the date of payment of duty or the close of that financial year.The respondents who are manufacturers of electric wires and cables which fell under T.I. 33B of the Central Excise Tariff at the material time filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 26,250/- (received in the AC's office on 11-4-1979) paid on first clearances of the value not exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs effected during the year 1978-79 on the ground that they were entitled to exemption on the basis of Notification No: 71/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978 as amended by Notification 91/78-C.E., dated 16-3-1978. Notification 71/78 provided exemption from payment of duty on the first cle...

Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT367TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original dated 30-6-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay confirming demand of duty of Rs. 19,35,681.60, confiscating the assets of the manufacturer but allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh and imposing penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the manufacturer and Rs. 10,000/- each on the Managing Director, Production Planning Officer, Manager (Excise) and Warehouse in-charge of the manufacturer.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cabinets bearing the name "visadex" and was clearing the cabinets paying duty on the approved value.3. The dispute in the appeals relate to the period September 1982 to August 1987. Officers of the preventive and intelligence headquarters, Bombay visited the factory and checked the stock of cabinets in the bonded store-room and noticed that cabinets along with card pockets were kept together in the bonded store room. They questioned various officers of the manufacturer and recorded statem...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Polyglass Fibres Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT256TriDel

1. A consignment of Woven Rowing was imported by the respondents for which clearance was sought in terms of S.No. 3 of Notification No.150/94-Cus., dated 13-7-1994, vide which the goods required for construction of or fitment to ships of Indian Navy were permitted to be cleared without payment of duty. The Asstt. Collector denied the benefit of this Notification on the observation that the certificate given by the Naval Authorities was to the effect that the imported goods were to be used for construction of "Boats and/or whalers", that the Notification referred to only "ships"; that the tariff distinguishes between ships and boats and therefore the benefit was not available. Collector (Appeals) reversed the order on the observation that in the past such benefit was extended to similar goods and that as per the definition in the General Clauses Act, the wording Ship included other vessels and boats also. He observed that "So long as the ultimate beneficiary of the end use is the India...

M and B Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT368TriDel

1. This is an application for waiver to deposit the duty amount of Rs. 22,432/-.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that credit was denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that there is delay beyond six months taking the credit. He submits that they filed declaration for availing the Modvat credit along with an application for taking credit under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules in respect of the inputs laying for their stock on the date of filing the Modvat declaration under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, no such limitation is prescribed.3. Heard Shri V. Sethi, JDR appearing on behalf of the respondents.After hearing both sides the deposit of amount of Rs. 22,432/- is waived and with the consent of both the parties, the appeal is being taken up for final disposal.4. The appellants are engaged manufacturer of footware and falling under Chapter 64 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant decided to take the benefit of Modvat credit on...

Telco Vs. Collector of Customs.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT549TriDel

1. The appellants herein imported two sets of Memory Array Boards 64 MB for ELXSI 6420 Computer System consisting of 32 MB Memory boards and Fasteners MAB for E Plane and sought clearance under Heading 8471.93 of CTA read with Notification 58/88, dated 1-3-1988. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the imported Memory Arrays known as Memory modules are not known as storage units in the computer trade or in common parlance and the goods were not storage units of Heading 8471.93. The goods were assessed as computer accessories under Heading 8473.30. The Collector (Appeals) has held that the imported goods satisfied the conditions for being considered as accessories because they were designed for mounting on memory controller and they enhance the range of operations by enhancing the memory of the existing system. Hence this appeal.2. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan, learned Counsel and Shri S.N. Ojha, learned DR and carefully considered their submissions.3...

Precise Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT308TriDel

1. The appellants assail the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad who has upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ghaziabad by which he rejected the refund claim dated 29-4-1992 for refund of duty of Rs. 1,38,655/- debited by the appellants in their PLA account vide entry No. 56 dated 26-3-1991.2. I have heard Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Counsel and Shri Nayyar, learned DR.3. For a better understanding of the dispute in this case, it would be necessary to set out a few facts for easy reference. The appellants who are manufacturers of Lal Dant Manjan and Hair Oil obtained inputs viz.plastic caps and plastic containers from their suppliers who cleared them to the appellants after payment of duty and the appellants used these containers and caps in the manufacture of their final products which are ultimately cleared on payment of duty. Since the Department was of the view that the inputs supplier M/s. Amrita Moulding was eligible to the bene...

R.S. Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. It is common ground that the complainant was allotted plot No. 147 through Ambika Co-operative House Building Society by D.D.A. who is the concerned Authority to sanction building plan and grant certificate in forms 'C' and 'D'. Under the Building By-laws, DDA is competent Authority to sanction building plan as well as to issue certificates in forms 'C' and 'D' regarding covering-up underground and drainage and sanitary work. Building permission in the instant case was issued by DDA on 29.4.93 which was revalidated upto 14.1.86. Further admitted case of the parties is that certificate in form 'C' was issued on 11.2.86. The complainant, in due course, applied for certificate in form 'D' on 8.4.86. He sent the application in the prescribed form from Srinagar, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, where he was employed as Head of Department of Physics in the Kashmir University, Srinagar. The complainant also obtained Water and Electricity connections and his fami...