Delhi Court November 1998 Judgments

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Titan Engg. Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT445TriDel

1. The assessees manufactured oxygen making plants. In such plants, ambient air was filtered to remove dust and also unwanted gases. The air was cooled in successive operations and was liquified. At the temperature of about minus degree 200 C, the oxygen was separated from nitrogen. This process required a number of heat exchangers to be utilised during the process. Such heat exchangers were also manufactured by the assessees and cleared under the erstwhile Tarrif Item No. 68. The entire oxygen making plant was also cleared by them under the same tariff item. The department felt that the classification of the heat exchanger was warranted under Tariff Item 29A. On the ruling so given, the assessees went to the CEGAT in appeal, who remanded the proceedings back to the jurisdictional authority to decide the case afresh by taking expert opinion. Expert opinion was obtained in the from of opinion of an expert Appraiser of the local Customs House as well as of the scientists at CMERI (Centr...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Snap Services

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT447TriDel

1. The assesses in this case were manufacturing Centrifugal Booster Fan and Exhaust hoods. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the classification of these items respectively under sub-heading 8414.80 and 8414.99. He, however, permitted the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended to these items holding that they are not parts of air-conditioning and refrigerating machinery. The Revenue have filed this appeal against this portion of the order making the claim that these two products are nothing but parts or accessories of refrigerating and air-conditioning machines.2. The Collector (Appeals) order gives the impression that the same disposed of two appeals filed by the assessee. However, since the appeal order bears one number and Order-in-Original is also single, although taking care of two SCNs, we treat this appeal as one appeal.3. At the material time Heading 84.14 covered fans and hoods, parts of these items were also covered in the same heading. Air conditioni...

Ramesh Chander Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Prayer in this O. A. is to declare that the applicant continued to be in lawful possession and occupation of Type 'C' Govt. accommodation bearing No. 14/819. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi since his transfer on 22.10.96 to the north-eastern region and declaring the cancellation letter dated 30.12.96 and subsequent proceedings under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act 1971 as illegal. The undisputed facts of the case are in a brief compass:-- 2. The applicant was posted to Shillong (Meghalaya) in the office of Area Accounts Officer under the organisation of C.D.A. Guwahati by order dated 18.10.96. After complying with the order the applicant made a representation dated 22.10.96 stating that he was not in a position to shift his family to the new Station of posting and requested for retention of the quarter allotted to him at Lodhi Colony. He informed that his basic pay was 2900/- and he was entitled to a type IV Govt.accommodation whereas he was...

Kathuria and Sons Vs. M.C.D. (Desu)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ717

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J 1. As identical questions are arising for consideration, by this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of two petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act filed by the petitioner.2. Before entering into the arena of contentions raised by the rival counsel for the parties and deciding the disputes arising for my consideration, it would be necessary to put on record the background facts leading to the filing of the present suits.Suit No. 1629/1994.3. The petitioner wanted to set up an industry and for the purpose applied for large industrial power connection. The respondent sanctioned a load of 1627 KVA for industrial purpose and thereupon the parties entered into an agreement for supply of electricity as provided for under the Indian Electricity Act. It is necessary to mention at this stage that for the purpose of charging for supply of electricity, the consumers have been divided in different categories like domestic, agriculture, small industrial...

Kalyan Chand Goyal Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)257; 1998(47)DRJ772

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The respondent awarded a work contract in favor of the petitioner for construction of 1088 Janata Houses at Raghubir Nagar. While executing the aforesaid works certain disputes arose between the parties and the same were referred for arbitration in terms of clause 25 of the arbitration agreement. The arbitrator appointed by the persona designata, entered upon the reference, received evidence and thereupon published and made his award on 14/15.1.1992. The aforesaid award was filed in this court as against which an objection has been filed by the respondent which is registered as is 13759/1992. The petitioner, on the other hand seeks for making the award a Rule of the Court.2. In respect of the aforesaid, I heard Mr. G.N.Aggarwal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.K.Sharma, appearing for the respondents at length and I give my decision on the same claim wise in the following manner:3. A preliminary objection has been raised in the objections contending int...

Devi Ram and ors. Vs. Ram Kapoor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 76(1998)DLT637; 1999RLR71

C.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated November 2, 1994 passed by Shri R.K. Gauba, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing the application of eviction of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petition was filed on July 11, 1986 and summons under Schedule III of the Act were issued. Leave to defend was granted vide order dated November 12, 1986 and, as a consequence, the respondent filed written statement and subsequently amended the written statement by way of an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC which was allowed.3. The suit premises were handed over to the respondent by way of a license agreement dated March 1, 1975 and the respondent was to pay Rs. 850/- per month as license fee. Subsequently this arrangement was converted into lease agreement by which the rental fixed was Rs. 900/- per month exclusive of electricity and water charges. Petitioners 2 and 3 are s...

Electricity Pole Mfg. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT754TriDel

1. This is stay application. The Apeallants are a sub-division and owned and controlled by the U.P. State Electricity Board constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity Act, 1948. Applicants are seeking waiver of pre-deposit of a duty demand of Rs. 3,42,666.20 and a penalty of Rs. 5,000 imposed on them by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad by order dated 19-5-98.2. Shri Y.P. Singh, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that two issues are involved in the main appeal, namely, clubbing of the clearances of electricity poles manufactured by the appellants in their various units and their claim for Modvat credit on cement. Their claim for Modvat credit on cement which is an input for the manufacture of PCC Poles was denied to them on the ground that the gate passes obtained by them were photo copies. As regards clubbing, the Collector (Appeals) had held that the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 cannot be allowed to the appellants since the appellants cann...

Vip Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT46TriDel

1. The impugned order demands duty on aluminium channels (given the shape for use in manufacture of suitcases) under Tariff Item 7613.90 and 83.07. Arguing the appeal ld. Counsel Shri Gautam Dutta draws our attention to paragraph 4(1) of the impugned order which mentioned the processes carried out by the appellants on channels procured by them from the market. These processes are :- 2. Shri Dutta ld. Counsel submits that these processes are carried only to make the channels of the size suitable for use in the manufacture of suitcases. They continued to be aluminium channel even after carrying out of these processes. They have not become any new goods liable to Central Excise duty. He submits that it has been held in a large number of judgments that bending, cutting to size, drilling, etc. do not amount to manufacture. He referred in particular to decision of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Dodsal Pvt. Ltd., Baroda - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 352 wherein the Tribunal held...

Oriental Science Apparatus Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC444Tri(Delhi)

1. Matter called. None for the appellants. They have desired the case to be heard on merits. Hence we have heard the ld. SDR Shri A.K.Agarwal. We have also gone through the Memo, of Appeal and other relevant papers on records.2. The castings of the bombshell are produced in a Government Factory/Ordinance Factory. The appellants herein obtained these castings for doing some job work like removal of excess surface material or for drilling some holes at some specific places as per the specifications of the concerned principal supplier of the castings.After doing the necessary machining as per the requirement of the job work then the goods are returned to the principal. It is the product arising as a result of the job work done by the appellants that the Department intends to levy duty on them as part of Bombshell falling under Tariff Heading 93.06 as components of ammunition. The appellants case on the other hand is that they have not undertaken any manufacture of goods. They have merely...

Prakash Tobacco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT104TriDel

2. Central Excise Officers checked in transit a Truck No. AMU 8908 on 19-12-1987 containing Prakash Brand and Appu Brand Chewing Tobacco. On demand by the Officers, the Driver of the Truck produced a bill dated 18-12-1987 purported to have been issued in respect of the consignment loaded on the said Truck. The bill indicated that the goods had been removed from the duty paid premises of the appellant's Company herein.The contents of the said bill along with a letter produced by the Truck Driver indicated that the said 398 bags loaded on the Truck had paid Central Excise Duty vide A.R.I. No. 183/87-88, dated 9-12-1987 and cleared vide gate pass No. 11, dated 9-12-1987.3. In his statement dated 19-12-1987, Shri Mohammad Samad, Driver of the Truck confirmed that the aforesaid consignment of the goods having been loaded from the factory premises of the appellant herein at Kaimganj. The Conductor of the Truck corroborated the statement of the Driver.4. On further investigation it was found...