Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(97)ELT484TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Eleind Engineering Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the Alsint Two Bore Insulators' oval shape imported by the appellants and the applicability to the exemption Notification No. 97/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989 as amended. The goods were imported by post and were declared as 'porcelain for laboratory use . The appellants sought classification u/s.h. No.9025.90 of the Customs Tariff as parts of the pyrometer. They also claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.172/89-Cus. The appellants had explained before the adjudicating authority that these insulators were used for insulating high temperature Electromotive Force (emf) originated through metal resistance and were suitable for use in pyrometer. The goods were classified by the Asstt. Collector, Customs Foreign Post Office, New Delhi u/s.h. No. 8546.20 of the Tariff as electrical insulator of ceramic. On appeal, the Collector, Customs (Appeals) observed that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)LC166Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeals relate to the classification of "Tool bit blanks" manufactured by the appellants herein and are hence taken up and disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants purchase round bars and square bars of special steels (Alloy steels), subject them to heat treatment, polish and clean them and then cut them to specific sizes. The customers of the appellants carry out processes such as grinding, edge sharpening, grooving etc.after which they acquire working edges and working sides and these are then used on machines and lathes for cutting purposes. The assessees claimed classification of the product under Heading 72.09 up to 1-3-1988 as 'bars (including flats) and Rods (including wire rods) of iron and steel, rolled, forged, extruded, formed, finished, whether in straight lengths or in coils...', and under Heading 72.28 as 'Other bars and rods of other alloy steel...' or alternatively under Heading 72.24 as 'Semi-finished products of other alloy steel after 1-3-1988...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(100)ELT411TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 19-2-1990 passed by Collector (Appeals), Calcutta.2. The Appellants have imported magnetic sine table. This was assessed to duty under C.T.H. 8479.89. Subsequently appellants filed refund claim claiming that the goods were actually classifiable under Heading 85.05 and description of goods as "Magnetic Sine Table having individual function" was forced on them by the Customs Authorities who assessed the goods under Heading 79.89. Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting their claim on the ground that there is no evidence that appellants were forced to give description of goods as magnetic appliances having individual function.2. None appeared on behalf of the Appellants when the matter was called. However, they have asked for decision on merits. The ld. DR submits that once the goods are described as magnetic appliances having individual functions they would be classifiable under Heading 84.79 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(96)ELT78TriDel
1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of soap filed Price List Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, all of 1987 claiming various deductions. The Assistant Collector disallowed deduction of interest on receivables and annual trade discount. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance of the annual trade discount, set aside disallowance of deduction of interest on receivables and remanded the case for decision on the question of deductibility of interest on receivables. This order was passed in view of the Supreme Court recalling the judgment in the earlier MRF Ltd. case [1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 (S.C.)]. The order is being challenged in relation to the annual trade discount.2. According to the appellant, every dealer is given a trade discount at the rate of 50 paise per carton of 12 kg. of soap, the quantum being calculated and paid after the end of the year. The Assistant Collector agreed that this is one of the sale conditions noted on the reverse of the invoices. That being so, the existence of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(98)ELT747TriDel
1. The Commissioner in the impugned order which is the Order-in-Original had held that kiln and furnace is essentially a plant or equipment used for the manufacture of final products of iron or steel by bringing about a change in the raw material. The appellants contended that the lining materials in question which are essential for the manufacture and are used as components/accessories for the efficient functioning of the kilns/furnaces, are to be extended the benefit of Modvat credit in view of the explanation l(b) under Rule 57Q. On this contention, the Commissioner held that the Modvat credit has been taken on refractories prior to 16-3-1995 when these were not specified as capital goods under Rule 57Q(1). The Commissioner further held that these are used in kilns-lining purpose only. He disallowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 10,37,606/-.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products. For heating sheets, arc furnac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(100)ELT404TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 30-10-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, confirming the demand in respect of the period from 19-2-1977 to 15-11-1979 in terms of the show cause notice dated 19-4-1982.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Ball Bearings, filed several price lists during the period 1976-79 declaring cash discount of 2% during one period and 11/2% during succeeding period and on approval of the same, cleared the goods to the depots at the discounted value. In other words, duty was paid on the basis of the assessable value after deducting the cash discount. Show cause notice was issued stating that such discount was not eventually allowed to all customers "on the point of sale" as per terms and conditions given in the price lists. It was, therefore, not deductible under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appellant resisted the notice contending that since cash discount was known to the trade and offered to all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(96)ELT55TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-5-1989 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. On the basis of the Revenue appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the "shafts" manufactured by the appellants are classifiable under 8483.00 and not under 8414 since the "shafts" are goods in Central Excise Tariff Act and in view of Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI, they would be more appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 8483.00.3. The appellants have submitted written submissions and are not present. Learned DR reiterates the Department's arguments submitting that these are specific goods described under 8483.00 and this classification is supported by the HSN Notes.4. We have heard the learned DR and perused the record of the case. The Collector (Appeals) has gone only by the description of the heading without indicating what the shafts actually are. The appellants on the other hand have contended that the CTH 84.83 which refers to trans...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT600TriDel
1. Appellant engaged in the manufacture of soap on its own and as job worker of other concerns including M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. filed price lists claiming various deductions including deduction on account of bank charges in respect of collection of sale proceeds of excisable goods and discount on account of damages. Assistant Collector rejected the claim under these two heads and the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the rejection. We are in this appeal not concerned with other claims adjudicated upon. Hence the present appeal.2. Order passed by the Assistant Collector makes it clear that bank charges referred to in the price list relate to bank charges for collection of sale proceeds. Tribunal in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v.C.C.E., 1996 (12) RLT 619 has held that the ratio in MRF judgment, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) relating to interest on receivables would apply to bank charges for collection of sale proceeds. We, therefore, find that the lower authorities were in error in rejecting the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VAD(Delhi)265; 68(1997)DLT553; 1997(43)DRJ108; 1997RLR567
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) What is the best way to win political foes? Persuasion? Understanding? Love? Compassion? Dale Carnegie's sermons? The sordid facts giving rise to these revision petitions against framing of charges show that the secret of success lies, at least with regard to some, in mastering the art of transferring one's own bulging wallets into the eager pockets of others. (2) More a little later. (3) Narsimha Rao, one may recollect, was, not long time ago, the Prime Minister of India. In the General Elections in 1991 though his party, the Congress (I), had emerged as a single largest party, yet it needed the support of at least 14 more members of Lok Sabha for a simple majority. Lack of clear majority and need to win over at least 14 other members of Lok Sabha was felt more acutely when the Government came to know of an impending 'Motion of No Confidence', which, in fact, came to be moved on the 26th day of July in the fateful year of 1993. On July 28, 1993, the Motion was los...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VAD(Delhi)911; 68(1997)DLT801; 1997(43)DRJ172
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant in order to facilitate the reference) against the judgment and decree dated March 11, 1977 passed by an Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge on May 16, 1974 dismissing the suit of the appellant. (2) Brief facts which led to the presentation of the present appeal are as under: that the appellant herein filed a suit before the learned lower Court which was registered as Suit No. 684/69 wherein he prayed that the defendant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent for the sake of convenience), their servants and agents be restrained from demolishing the tin shed existing at the rear portion of premises bearing No. B-29B, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, fully shown in the plan annexed with the plaint. The case of the appellant is that he is the owner of premises bearing No. ...
Tag this Judgment!