Delhi Court September 1997 Judgments

Tata Engg. and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus. (Appeals)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT776TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (TELCO) the issue for consideration is whether the Compressor Housing imported by TELCO was a part which was interchangeable part of motor vehicles for the purposes of concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. There is no dispute that the goods were classifiable under sub-heading No. 9806.00 of the Customs Tariff which covered parts of Machinery, equipment, appliances, instruments and articles of Chapters 84, 85, 86, 89 and 90. The importers claimed the benefit of Notification No. 69/87-Cus. on the ground that the parts imported by them were for the compressor which was covered under Heading No. 84.14 of the Tariff. The matter was adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector of Customs who observed that Turbocharger could be used/fitted in passenger cars, diesel engine and as the parts of Turbochargers were capable of being used in motor vehicles they were not eligible for th...

Syntex Tube Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT295TriDel

2. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original 7/Collr/MP/89, dated 27-9-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur.3. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of steel and aluminium cops (tariff sub-heading 7608) was filing price lists from time to time and paying duty on the approved price. Dispute in the appeal relates to the period from July, 1985 to April, 1987. Central Excise Officers who visited the premises of the factory on 30-6-1987 and verified the accounts and records found that the appellant was clearing manufactured aluminium cops clandestinely without payment of duty. Premises was searched on 2-7-1987 and certain records were seized. Scrutiny of the records showed various irregularities. We are concerned in this appeal with the manufacture and clandestine clearance of cops out of unaccounted aluminium rods and clandestine clearance without payment of duty, excess stock of scrap over and above that accounted for, undervaluation of scrap and manufacture of ...

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT503TriDel

1. This stay application is filed with reference to Order-in-Appeal dated 27-3-1997 wherein demand of duty amounting to Rs. 32,725/- has been confirmed on the ground that the appellants did not account some quantity of brown sugar lost during storage and process.2. Arguing for the appellants the ld. Advocate submits that brown sugar is not sugar at all and therefore no duty can be demanded on it unless it is converted into marketable sugar. He submits that in their own case in a similar matter Writ Petition No. 613/1994, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that no duty shall be demanded on such brown sugar.4. Considered. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition 613/1994 referred to Tribunal's earlier decision rendered on 22-3-1993 vide E/1566/85-D as well as D/1723/85-D in case of New Swadeshi Co-operative Sugar Mills. The Hon'ble High Court held that Rule 9 and Rule 49 could not apply to brown sugar which is not shown to be excisable goods as specified in the Tariff.5. In view of this...

Reliable International and ors. Vs. Ashok Dang

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)955; 69(1997)DLT359

K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The four plaintiffs have filed a suit for injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from carrying on its business as manufacturers or vendors of the electrical goods using the trade mark Comet and for injunction restraining the defendant from using the trade style Reliable INDIA; for injunction restraining the defendant from passing off the electrical goods except the electrical fans, cooler pumps under the trade mark Comet and for account of profits. (2) The case of the plaintiffs briefly stated is this. The plaintiffs and the defendant had been carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing of electrical goods and appliances such as electric, iron, immersion heaters, room heaters, hot plates, mixer grinders, juicers, toasters, geysers, heat convectors, fans coolers, table lamps, cooking heaters, ovens and gas tenders etc. for the several years. For the year 1975, the plaintiffs and the defendant adopted the trade mark Comet for selling...

Kinetic Technology Syndicate Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT709TriDel

1. These are two appeals one filed by M/s. Kinetic Technology India Ltd. and the other by the clearing agent M/s. Air Impex Cargo Agency being aggrieved by the common order-in-original dated 31-10-91 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi. As both the appeals arise out of the common order-in-original they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. M/s. Kinetic Technology (hereinafter referred to as the importers) had imported a consignment of seamless pipes which they declared as nickel iron based alloy tubes.They declared the classification under sub-heading 7507.02 of the Customs Tariff. (Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the correct classification should have been 7507.12 as there is no sub-heading 7507.02 in the Customs Tariff). Subsequently the show cause notice was issued proposing the classification under sub heading No. 7304.39 of the tariff. In the show cause notice the charge of under-valuation was al...

Gopala Krishna Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT425TriDel

1. This batch of four appeals cover a common issue involving the same issue, namely, retrospective applicability of exemption Notification No. 236/86, dated 3-4-1986 which granted full exemption from duty for parts of power driven pumps used captively in the manufacture of such pumps. Shri G. Shiv Dass, learned Counsel for the appellant states that this matter stands covered by Tribunal decision in Saga Electricals Pvt. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 265 which was with reference to this very Notification.Prior to the coming into force of the present Central Excise Tariff, such goods were eligible for exemption from duty under Notification No.118/75, dated 30-4-1975 and 64/86. When the new Tariff was introduced, no Notification was available for continued grant of such benefit beyond 28-2-1986. The position was rectified with the issue of Notification No. 236/86, dated 3-4-1986 which had the effect of reviving the benefit which was granted u...

Alpha Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT120TriDel

1. The appellant imported a consignment of "One Meltog 157 Mark II Bodymaker complete with In-link Hopper feed with integral vacuum suction system which was assessed under Tariff Heading 84.59(2). Along with the aforesaid item was also imported a Side Seam soldering unit close coupled to and driven from the Bodymaker. The latter was classified under Tariff Heading 84.59(1). The appellant cleared goods on a payment of duty as assessed and thereafter filed the refund claim.The Internal Audit Department of the Custom House raised an objection questioning the classification and assessment of the second item. The concerned Appraising Group justified the assessment made of the subject item and the objection was closed. The appellant was also asked to file the catalogue to explain the function of the equipment. It is mentioned in the order that the catalogue was produced which indicated that it was capable of functioning independent of the equipment at Sl. No. 1.It was held by the Assistant ...

Mittal Cosmetics and Chemical P. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT313TriDel

1. The appellant vide their communication dated 30-7-1997 made a request to decide the appeal on merits.2. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 27-2-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).3. In this case, the dispute is regarding the classification of Linear Alkyl Benzene Sulphonic Acid chemically known as acid slurry. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of acid slurry has filed classification list claiming classification of acid slurry under sub-heading No. 24.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of sample of acid slurry which was drawn from the sister concern of the appellant i.e. M/s. Mid Camph Industries. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise vide order dated 6-11-1990 modified the classification of acid slurry and ordered the classification under Chapter sub-heading 3402.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, 1985.4. The appellant filed the appeal and the appeal was dismissed...

C.E. Bailey Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. All these appeals involve consideration of common points. Hence, we find it convenient to dispose of all these appeals by this consolidated order.2. All these assessees are foreign technicians and are employed by a non-resident company called M/s. GEC Turbine Generator India Ltd., a non-resident company registered in U.K. (hereinafter referred to as 'GEC'). M/s. GEC was engaged in the business of errecting, setting up, etc., of Power Stations. It had undertaken the contract of setting up of a Power Plant at Balco, Korba, in Madhya Pradesh for M/s. Bharat Aluminium Corporation. It had also undertaken a sub-contract in the matter of erection of power plant at Rihand, UP to be set up by NTPC.This sub-contract was taken from the principal contractor known as Northern Engineering Industries. The object of sub-contract was only to provide technicians for supervision and erection. These employees were all working in India at different places or work sites.3. The survey operation under sec...

Delhi Multi Storeyed Building Employees Congress Vs. Union of India an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998(79)FLR821]

1. All these petitions raise similar question of law and they are being disposed of by this being disposed of by this judgment. For convenience only facts of CWP No. 3106/1995 are recapitulated. The petitioner Delhi Multistoreyed building Employees' Congress, is a registered Trade Union. It has a membership of about 35,000 employees who are employed in various buildings in Delhi. 14 petitioners have approached this Court by which they have prayed that the order dated March 27, 1995 issued by Respondent No. 4 threatening to terminate their services be quashed. The petitioners have further prayed in this Petition that Respondent No. 2 be directed to absorb the petitioners. 2. The members of the petitioner Congress have been employed by Respondent No. 4 on Contract basis for doing the work for respondent No. 2, Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter to be referred as ONGC). The ONGC has now decided to terminate the contract with Respondent No. 4. On termination of the contract, the e...