Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(97)ELT383TriDel
1. This Appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 10-11-1989 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.2. The Appellants imported carbide tipped circular cutter and claimed classification under C.T.A. 82.08 read with 84.74 as Knives for machinery used in shaping or moulding ceramic paste, stones, hardened cement etc. The claim was rejected by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that knives are not parts of composite machine which is employed in shaping or moulding of the goods specified under C.T.A. 84.74. These on the other hand are meant for fitment into separate machine with motor for cutting hard materials like Asbestos cement etc.3. Arguing for the Appellants the ld. Counsel vehemently contests the findings arrived at by the Collector. He submits that these knives are not fitted into machine for cutting hard materials. The knives are fitted into machine for cutting wet absestos pastes to give it a shape.In this view of the matter therefore these knives cannot be c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(97)ELT109TriDel
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 28-2-1997, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,85,118/- and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, Saharanpur on the ground that the appellants had taken credit on undeclared inputs and that they had failed to file Modvat declaration for the changed sub-headings of acrylic fibre/acrylic waste.2. It was contended by the appellants that they had filed declarations under Rule 57G on 28-3-1994, declared the process of manufacture along with declaration under Rule 57E and they had also filed a declaration under Rule 57F(3). It was seriously contended that the declarations and the invoices tallied and that the allegation of taking Modvat credit without declaring is totally not substantiated by the department.However, both the authorities without due verification of the declarations or the invoices or even the case law have rejected their pleas and has confirmed the demand besides impos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(96)ELT57TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-original dated 16-4-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, confirming demand of duty of Rs. 3,26,771.85 on electric motors manufactured and cleared by the appellant without payment of duty during the period from 1981-82 to 1981-86 as demanded in the show cause notice and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 on the appellant under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Certain electric motors seized earlier were ordered to be released.2. Appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of electric motors since 1974 in premises L 84, in the Industrial Estate allotted by GIDC. Appellant had availed benefit of exemption Notification Nos. 71/78, 80/80 and 83/83, which exempted small scale industries from payment of duty for goods manufactured and cleared up to the value of Rs. 5 lakhs, Rs. 7.5 lakhs and Rs. 7.5 lakhs respectively. Appellant was filing declarations indicating the annual production to be of the v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 70(1997)DLT742
D.K. Jain, J.(1) This application for judgment under Order 12 Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code has been filed in suit for ejectment, declaration, mandatory injunction, prohibitory injunction and recovery of mesne profits. The applicant claims that defendant No. I has admitted all factual averments in the plaint, which is disputed by the said defendant. (2) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit premises were demised to defendant No. I under the lease deed dated 24 February, 1988 for a period of three years; the tenancy expired on 24 February, 1991 by efflux of time and again on 24 February, 1994, where after it became a tenancy from month to month; the last agreed rental was Rs. 43,063.00 p.m.: the said defendant defaulted in paying rent from July, 1995 till fuly, 1996; there was a fire in the building in another portion in June, 1995, resultant whereto defendant No. 2, the Chief Fire Officer sealed the building and required installation of fire fighting- equipment; the plaintiff was w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(98)ELT652TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. only issue for our consideration is that the parts and components which were imported for use in the manufacture of fuel efficient car, when found damaged before their use and not actually used in the manufacture of such fuel efficient car will be or will not be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 268/84-Cus., dated 30-10-1984. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of fuel efficient cars and for that purpose were importing parts and components under Notification No. 268/84-Cus., dated 30-10-1984 as amended. The goods were warehoused and thereafter cleared from the warehouse. When they were received in the factory and were actually put to use, it was found that they were damaged and were not fit for use for the purpose for which they had been imported. In terms of the aforesaid notification the importer had furnished an undertaking that the components imported shall be used for the specified purpose and that differenti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(100)ELT413TriDel
1. The appellants drew our attention to the Circular No. COD/11/96, dated 16-4-1996 circulated by the Under Secretary of the Cabinet wherein Committee of Secretaries have permitted the appellants to persue the matter before the Tribunal by giving clearance. Accordingly, we proceed to hear both the sides to pass this order.2. The point to be considered in this case is whether Protective Equipment imported by the appellants is classifiable under 85.18/27(2) as per department or under 85.18/27(3) as per the assessee. The relevant Tariff Entry is as under :- 85.18/27 - Electrical capacitors; electrical apparatus for making and breaking electrical circuits for the protection of electrical circuits, or for making connections to or in electrical circuits; resistors other than heating resistors; printed circuits; switchboards (other than telephone switchboards) and control panels; electric filament lamps and discharge lamps, are lamps; electronic valves and tubes; photocells; mounted piezo-el...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(110)ELT562TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order dated 12-10-1995 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the rejection of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,48,230/- taken by the appellants on invalid documents and also confirmed the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed under Rule 173(Q)(i)(bb) of Central Excise Rules. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants had taken Modvat credit of duty on the strength of GP 1 No. 000811/011, dated 14-7-1993 vide Entry No. 262 in RG 23A Pt II account. It was found that the Gate Pass in question did not contain the name and address and licence number, PLA number and name of the excisable commodity. It was also noticed that the gate pass had been issued by M/s. Arihant Ship Brakers. It was noticed that according to Modvat rules, credit of duty is allowed if the duty had been paid on the inputs and the duty paying character of the inputs had clearly been established on the strength of the relative documents under the cover of which the goods have been received. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT624TriDel
1. Case called none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, we find that issue involved in this case has been covered by the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Jindal Strips Ltd. v.Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1997 (21) RLT 275 (CEGAT-Larger Bench).2. Whether spare parts can be considered as components for the purpose of grant of benefit of Notification No. 156/86-Cus., dated 1-3-1986 in terms of the said notification, is issue to be considered in this case.3. We find that by majority it has been decided that component parts referred to in the notification under consideration is covered spare parts and benefit of notification would be available also in respect of import refractory bricks intended for use as spare parts. Since the issue has already been decided by the Larger Bench, following the same, we accept the contention of the assessee and accordingly the appeal is disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)975; 70(1997)DLT767
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order passed by the Company Law Board, Northern Region Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on 16.5.1996 in the Company Petition No.4/17/96-CLB filed by the appellant Company under section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) confirming the Special Resolution passed in the Extraordinary General Meeting of the appellant Company with condition that the appellant Company shall provide transportation facilities to its shareholders from Delhi to Gurgaon for every Annual General Meeting of the Company held at Gurgaon. (2) The appellant Company was incorporated on 7.3.1988 and is a public Company under the provisions of the Companies Act. The paid-up capital of the appellant Company as on 23.11.1995 was Rs. 5,75,16,390.00 divided amongst 8125 shareholders holding 5751639 shares out of which 2490 shareholders are in Maharashtra, 2023 shareholders are in Delhi,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1998]232ITR722(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. By this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the assessed seeks a mandamus commanding the Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court arising out of the order of the Tribunal relevant to the asst. yr. 1985-86 : '1. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that a perusal of the agreement makes, it abundantly clear that the assessed has not manufactured or supplied any intermediary products in the execution of civil engineering works and other works and whether in arriving at its finding the Tribunal has misread the evidence and the agreement between the assessed and the Bokaro steel unit 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that all the works undertaken by the assessed under the agreement with Bokaro Steel, do not involve the activity of manufacturing any article or thing 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed is not engaged in the activity of manufacturi...
Tag this Judgment!