Delhi Court February 1998 Judgments

Sudha Pharma Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(76)LC329Tri(Delhi)

1. The common appellant imported two consignments of Khas Khas of Pakistan origin, the total quantity being 58.8 metric tonnes and presented two Bills of Entry dated 19.11.1990 declaring the value as Rs. 3.60 per kg. and sought clearance. Show cause notices were issued proposing to enhance the value to Rs. 12.00 per kg. Though the appellant resisted the notices, the proposal therein was confirmed and assessable value was determined on the basis of the proposed price.These orders are now challenged.2. The Additional Collector relied on a computer print-out relating to the clearance of Khas Khas of Afghanistan origin imported at Bombay Port on 16.1.1991 at Rs. 13.00 per kg. There were three clearances of Khas Khas of Pakistan origin on 16.1.1991 at the Madras Port, the quantum being 14 metric tonnes, 14 metric tonnes and 43 metric tonnes respectively. The assessable value was Rs. 12.20, Rs. 12.00 and Rs. 12.90 per kg. respectively. Obviously, the value assessed at the Bombay Port cannot...

Amar Sinhji Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT146TriDel

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 31-1-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.The appellant also filed a Misc. application for the change in the title of the appeal from M/s. Shri Amarsinhji Mills Ltd. to M/s. Shri Amarshinhji Stationery Industries Ltd. The changed title of the firm is approved by the department of Company Affairs. Hence the Misc.application is allowed and the title of the appeal is ordered to be changed from Shri Amarsinhji Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, RajkotShri Amarsinhji Stationery Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Rajkot.The Commissioner of Central Excise vide impugned order upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority whereby the duty liability of the appellants under Tariff Item 68 was adjusted.2. Arguing the appeal on merits Id. Counsel submits that in pursuance of the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 7-1-1987, the appellants filed a r...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Govind Rubber Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT67TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh dated 30-4-1991.2. Learned DR stated that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Moped Tubes. In this case, the respondents had claimed benefit of Notification No. 231/85, dated 11-11-1985 in respect of the tyres and tubes. However, this was a conditional notification and one of the conditions related to the value of clearance. According to the Department, they had not satisfied this condition. The aforesaid notification had been amended by an amending Notification No. 42/89, dated 1-3-1989. The explanation added by this amending notification changed the basis of calculation of value for purpose of clearance. The learned Collector (Appeals) has granted benefit of this amendment even for the period prior to 1-3-1989. Whereas according to the department the benefit could be extended only with effect from the date of issue of notification and onwards.3. Learned C...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT872TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the order-in-appeal dated 11-11-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay is under challenge.2. The matter relates to the benefit of exemption Notification No.225/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986 as amended by Notification No. 258/86-C.E., dated 24-4-1986. The respondents M/s. National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co.had stock of polyvinyl chloride on the date of the amending notification i.e. on 24-4-1986, There is no dispute that such PVC lying in stock on 24-4-1986 were duty paid. They utilised these PVC (referred to as inputs) in the manufacture' of textile fabrics impregnated/coated covered, or laminated with plastics (hereinafter referred to as final products). The inputs were used in the manufacture of final product after the date of amending notification. The Revenue took the plea that for the benefit of Notification No. 225/86-C.E. the inputs should have been received after the date of amending notification and that no benefit was available to...

Saf Yeast Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(75)LC751Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad upholding the Assistant Commissioner's rejection of refund claim of Rs. 1,31/102.95 on the twin grounds of limitation and unjust enrichment.2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the above appeal are that the assessees/appellants filed price lists dated 26.3.1990, 14.5.1990, 7.7.1990 and 1.8.1990 for approval and cleared their final products on payment of duty calculated as per the declared prices. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the appellants' price lists and approved the prices as per his order in original dated 27.3.1991 thereby necessitating the appellants paying the differential duty of the amount above mentioned. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad who remanded the matter for de novo consideration for approval of prices in the light of his observations in order-in-appeal dated 15.5.1992. Pending the approval, the appellants were coerced to pay the differ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ester Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT148TriDel

1. The amount of credit involved in the above appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is Rs. 10,051.65. The Department is aggrieved by the extension of credit on an item called D.M.S. which according to the Revenue was not covered by the assessee's declaration under Rule 57H in 1987 or 57G declaration filed in 1992. According to the learned DR, the declaration dated 24-11-1987 covered the item "5 Sodium Sulfo Dimethyl Isophthalate" falling under Heading 2917.00 which is a different chemical from D.M.S.as D.M.S. contains sulfo group while the product declared by the respondents on 24-11-1987 does not contain sulfo group. The Counsel for the respondents however, submits that they went by the description given in the Bill of Entry viz. D.M.S. (5 Sodium Sulfo Dimethyl Isophthalate).2. Learned DR has not been able to explain as to how the item on which credit has been extended, i.e. D.M.S., is different from the item declared in 1987. The Department has ...

American Power Conversion (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(103)ELT6(Del)

ORDER1. C.W.P. No. 607/98: It is pointed out the matter is identical with CWs 3924-3925/96 and 1103/97 copy of the order dated 19-8-1997 passed therein is available at page 32 of the paper book.2. It is conceded at the bar that the issue arising for decision in this petition is also pending before the Supreme Court in an appeal filed against the judgment of the CEGAT in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Jaipur, (page 22 of the paper book). The hearing of this petition is adjourned sine die awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court. Either party would be at liberty to mention this matter for hearing as soon as the decision of the Supreme Court has been rendered.3. CM. No. 1029/98 : The learned counsel for the petitioner requests for interim relief being allowed to the petitioner submitting that the question of survival of the petitioners is involved.4. The question arising for decision in the present petition is under which of the heading Uninterrupted Power Supply System (...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Khetu Ram Bishamber Dass

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT65TriDel

1. These are four appeals - Appeal No. E/2752/91-D filed by the Revenue, Appeal No. E/2799/91-D filed by M/s. Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. and two Appeals filed by the Revenue bearing Nos. E/3045-3046/91-D in which the respondents are M/s. Khetu Ram Bishamber Dass. M/s. Khetu Ram Bishamber Dass had filed Cross-Objections in both the appeals filed by the Revenue. In Appeal No. E/2752/91-D, the respondents M/s. Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. have also filed cross-objections. As in all these appeals and the cross-objections, the issues for our consideration are the same and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. For M/s. Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. Dena), Shri B.L. Sood, Advocate submitted that w.e.f. 1-4-1989, the Central Excise Tariff with regard to Heading No. 24.04 had been recast and a new sub-heading No. 2404.60 was inserted to cover the preparations containing snuffs of tobacco in any proportion. Before this changer-over, the snu...

Garware Plastics and Polyester Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT196TriDel

1. Case called. No ppeared on behalf of the appellants. However, there was a request from them on decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after tearing Shri D.S. Negi, learned DR for the Revenue.2. The point to be considered in this case is whether "Radiator fan" is lassifiable as part of the Engine under Heading 84.09 as claimed by the party or under Heading 87.08 as part of the Vehicles as per department.3. The claim of the party that it is a part of the Engine has not been ubstantiated with any evidence. On the other hand, we find in the record that is only a part of the vehicle and the department was right in treating it as part of the vehicle and classifying under sub-heading No. 8708.00. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) in classifying the goods. In view of the above, we uphold the impugned order tnd, accordingly, the appeal filed by the party is hereby dismissed....

Com. Rakesh Sharma Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, complainant, had to pay Rs. 80,350/- to Air Force Naval Housing Board in May, 1991. He had Saving Bank Account with Moti Bagh Branch of Punjab National Bank (PNB) No. 5647. He issued two cheques, the first cheque was No. 845636 dated 10.5.1991 for Rs. 60,350/- in favour of AFNHB and the second cheque was number 845637 dated 13.5.1991 for Rs. 20,000/-. In order to make the necessary balance available, he deposited two cheques No. 719442, drawn on Nanakpura Branch of PNB for Rs. 10,000/- and another cheque No. 371558 drawn on Bank of India, Parliament Street for Rs. 6,000/-. Both these cheques were deposited on Sunday 12th May, 1991 and the Moti Bagh Branch sent the cheque drawn on Bank of India on the next working day i.e. Monday the 13th May, 1991. The cheque was cleared and credited to the account of the complainant on 15.5.1991. The cheque drawn on Nanakpura Branch could not be sent on Monday as the next following day, namely Tuesday, t...