Delhi Court September 1997 Judgments

Collector of Customs Vs. M.M. Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT463TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the goods imported Electro Magnetic Clutches. The importer M/s. M. M. Enterprises has sought classification of the said goods under sub-heading No. 8505.20 of the Customs Tariff which covered electro magnetic couplings, clutches and brakes. The goods imported were meant for car air conditioning system. The Asstt. Collector of Customs was of the view that the goods imported were a part of air conditioning system and the air conditioning system by virtue of Note 1 Chapter 98 were classifiable under sub-heading No. 9806.00. Taking the electro magnetic clutches as part of the air conditioning system, he, classified them as under sub-heading No. 9806.00 of the Tariff with benefit of Notification No. 68/87, dated 1-3-1987 as amended. The importers filed an appeal with the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay who set aside the order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Customs and held that the electro magneti...

Cyma Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT309TriDel

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants.However, there is a request from them to decide the case on merit.2. The Appellants filed refund claim on the ground that duty had been paid by them under mistake of law in respect of nozzles and nozzle holders which were purchased and the same were utilised by them as original equipment for the manufacture of the IC Engine. The Collector (Appeals) has clearly observed in his order that the appellants are not the manufacturer of nozzles and nozzle holders and accordingly they are not entitled to claim the refund of duty. At the time of purchasing the goods if they had paid any duty to the manufacturers the course open to them to recover the amount from the manufacturers and not from the department. This logic is correct in terms of provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the finding portion of the Collector (Appeals) in the last paragraph of the order is reproduced below :- "I have carefully gone th...

Amba Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT353TriDel

1. In all these appeals, common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are all taken up together for disposal as per law.2. There are two appeals filed by M/s. Amba Woollen Mills, one appeal arising from the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay in S/10 (M.Cell) Collr. 53/8742, dated 8-6-1987/4-9-1987, which has been numbered in Delhi Bench as C/4005/87-NB, the original number allotted in WRB, Bombay as C/1106/87-Bom. In this appeal, the learned Collector has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- against M/s. Amba Woollen Mills besides ordering confiscation of goods namely, Polyester Fibre as well as Acrylic Fibre under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. He has not given an option of redemption to the importers. In the same order, he has imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on M/s. Cambridge Woollen Mills and Rs. 1,00,000/- on M/s. Shakti International. There is no appeal of the M/s. Cambridge Woollen Mills. However, M/s. Shakti International has filed a separat...

Amrapali Structural (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(73)LC345Tri(Delhi)

1. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the Ld. Counsel submits that the appellants have undertaken activity of galvanisation and cutting into pieces of angles and they were paying job charges without knowing that the activity carried out by them did not amount to manufacture. On knowing that the activity carried out by them did not amount to manufacture they stopped payment of duty. He submits that the show cause notice was issued raising the demand on the ground that they have cleared M.S. Structural, M.S. Tanks out of M.S. angles and plates. In the order Collector held that what the appellants have cleared were not M.S. Structural but in fact they were transmission towers. He submits that the order has gone beyond the show cause notice which is not permissible and the party was not at all show caused after clearance of transmission towers as alleged in the show cause notice. He submits that it is a settled position now that the galvanisation and cutting does not amount to manufactur...

Ravi Fans (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT104TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.83-CE/Alld./89. The appellants obtained stampings and laminations for manufacture of electric fans. These stampings and laminations were at the first stage used in the manufacture of electric motors which subsequently were used in the manufacture of fans. The appellants claimed benefit of Notification 95/83, dated 1-3-1983. The benefit was refused to them on the ground that they did not pay any duty on electric motors.2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that Notification 95/83 clearly allowed set off duty to electric stamping used in the manufacture of electric motors and also duty set off on electric motors used in the manufacture of electric fans. What was intended was that electric fans should get duty relief to the extent of duty paid on inputs whether electrical stampings or electrical motors.It is true that they did not pay any duty on electric motors since these electric motors were independently exem...

Gehring India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT74TriDel

1. By impugned order-in-original dated 27-12-1996, Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 13,85,378.37 claimed by the appellants was disallowed by Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, and a penalty of Rs. 1.5 lacs imposed.2. Modvat credit was denied on the ground that the duty paying documents viz. the Bills of Entry were not in the name of the appellants but in the name of another company. The appellants' case is that the Bills of Entry had been endorsed in their name and since the Bills of Entry after its endorsement in their name showed them as the recipients of the inputs there was no justification for denying their claim for Modvat credit. The Department contends that where a Bill of Entry shows the name of an importer other than the actual claimant for Modvat and the inputs had not been directly received by the claimant the receipt of the inputs should have been supported by an invoice issued by the importer. The Collector relied on Notification No.16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 in ...

Manmohan Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

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. ...

P.V. Narsimha Rao Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

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...

Vishwa Ranjan Vs. Managing Director, Arihant Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Vishwa Ranjan, complainant for short, was holder of 15 redeemable debentures of Rs.l50/-each of M/s. Arihant Industries Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the opposite party. The debentures carried interest @ 14% p.a. and was payable every six months. In his complaint dated 12.7.1995, the complainant sought direction to the opposite party to pay the redemption money as also the interest which had been agreed from 1.4.1994 onwards according to the terms and conditions of the debentures. The case was contested by the opposite party. Interalia, objection regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction was raised. District Forum-II upheld the objection on the ground that the opposite party Company had no office in Delhi and no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. We have heard the appellant in person and Mr. Raman K. Soo Com...

Upper India Steel Mfg. and Engg. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT306TriDel

1. By the captioned appeal, the appellants have agitated against the findings of the Collector holding that the initial burden was on the appellants to prove that the inputs on which the deemed Modvat credit has been taken was utilised by them are recognisable as non-duty paid or charged to nil rate of duty which they have failed to discharge. The Collector, therefore, directed the appellants to reverse the amount of Rs. 54,97,231.84 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lac on them.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots and iron and steel rolled products. They were purchasing scrap of iron and steel from the market. The appellants in pursuance to the Government of India Order No. B/22/86-C.E., dated 7-4-1986 took the deemed Modvat credit on iron and steel scrap purchased from the market. The department alleged that the appellants have not produced any evidence that the duty was paid on the scrap and, therefore, they were not ent...