Delhi Court March 1998 Judgments

Plastic Weave Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT71TriDel

1. As the issue involved in the instant case lie in a narrow compass, the appeal was taken up for hearing after allowing the stay petition unconditionally and the matter was remanded to the originally adjudicating authorities. Decision was pronounced in the open Court.Reasons for the same are being recorded as under.2. Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,06,974.00 was denied to the appellant on the ground that the same has been availed by them on the basis of 6th copy of the invoice, which cannot be considered to be a valid or legal document in terms of provision of Rule 57G(2). Appearing on behalf of the appellant Shri R.L. Mehta, learned Advocate submits that no doubt originally the Modvat credit was availed by the Appellant on the 6th copy but subsequently they have produced the original copy of the invoice before the Central Excise Authorities for their verification. In this connection, he referred to the show [cause] notice dated 24-4-1995 and drew the attention of the Bench to the ...

Collector of Customs Vs. Endee Engineers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT403TriDel

1. M/s. Endee Engineers had imported a consignment containing the goods described as "Combustible Gas Detector/Alarm Model - 3835 and sought clearance under sub-heading No. 9027.10 of the Customs Tariff. For Import Trade Control (ETC) purposes, they sought clearance against the Appendix I Part B Item No. 4(3) of the ITC with covers "Combustible Gas Indicator like gas detector and accessories". The Asstt. Collector, Customs who adjudicated the matter observed that the goods imported were combustible gas alarm which was not merely a detector but included a signalling part also. Insofar as the classification was concerned, it was held to be classifiable under sub-heading No. 8531.10 of the Customs Tariff. On appeal, the Collector, Customs (Appeals), Bombay decided the matter in favour of the appellants (respondents before us) both with regard to ITC angle as well as of classification.2. The Revenue in the grounds of appeal had pleaded that the goods did not fit into the description of En...

U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT215TriDel

1. This is a case relating to reversal of Modvat credit on molasses lost during storage.2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that they did not claim any remition of duty and draws attention to letter dated 12-12-1997. He submits that they are not contesting the matter on merits as in their own case reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 236 - wherein Tribunal held that benefit of loss in terms of Rule 57(d) cannot be given in case of loss during storage. He further submits that actual quantity of molasses lost were not worked out and properrate of duty applied and in this connection, he has furnished a chart also.3. Ld. DR agrees that matter could be remanded for verification with reference to chart now presented by the ld. Counsel.4. Considered. Tribunal has already held in their own case cited earlier that credit is not admissible on the quantity lost before utilisation in the manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol.5. In view of this, I too hold accordingly but remand the matter to A...

Commr. of Cus. Vs. H.C.L. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT257TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by two separate orders one passed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), New Delhi and the other passed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), Hyderabad. In both the appeals, similar issue is for our consideration.Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In the appeal decided by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), New Delhi the goods were described by the importers in the B/E as "Optional Time Domain Reflectometers". In another appeal in which the impugned order is by Collector, Customs (Appeals), Hyderabad, the goods were described as "Automatic Test Equipment - Single Mode Reflectometer". On examination, the goods were found to be 'optical time domain reflectometer'.3. There is no dispute about classification. The respondents have claimed the benefit of Notification No. 96/91-Cus., dated 25-7-91 under serial No. 53 of the Table annexed to that notification which covers 'automatic te...

indica Chemical Industries Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT381TriDel

1. The captioned appeal seeks the quashing of order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 11-3-1996 confirming a duty demand of Rs. 8,62,382.00 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on the appellants.2. We have heard Shri A.N. Haksar, ld. Sr. Counsel with Shri Daya Sagar, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants and Shri D.K.Nayyar, ld. JDR, who appeared for the respondent Collector.3. Appellants were issued a two SCNs by the Department on 8-9-1994 and 18-10-1994 asking them to show cause why Modvat credit taken by them on HDPE bags/sacks should not be dis-allowed on the ground that the said items were ineligible inputs. In the initial adjudication proceedings the Assistant Collector by his order-in-original held that HDPE bags/sacks were not admissible inputs and, therefore, no credit on the said items was permissible but since the appellants had already reversed the credit taken by them on HDPE bags/sacks no further recovery in this regard was to be made. ...

Daewoo Motors India Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(77)LC131Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Daewoo Motors India Ltd. have filed an appeal being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 24.11.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi which was received in the registry on 27.2.1998. Along with the appeal, they have also filed a stay application for waiving the pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 39,63,592/-.2. The matter relates to the classification of the product which had been referred to as Engine Control Module (ECM). The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had confirmed the classification of ECM under heading No. 85.43 of the Customs Tariff. The appellants have pleaded that the goods were classifiable under heading No. 84.09.3. We have heard Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate for the appellants and Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR for the respondent. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate referred to the functioning of the ECM as given at page 3 of the appeal memo. It was his submission that the ECM in the car manufactured by the appellants replaces the carburet...

Gorawara Plastics and General Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee has raised the following grounds against the order dt.2nd Oct., 1991 passed by the CIT (A) for asst. yr. 1988-89 : "(1) That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter called the CIT (A)] erred in not considering the submissions made before him and not giving opportunity if he disagreed with them, thus denying the principles of natural justice thereby rendering the order passed by him as bad in law. (2) That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in treating on account payments of Rs. 5,39,757 as job work receipts from Samtel India Ltd. (3) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,75,539 out of finance charges paid to Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation. (3.1) Without prejudice and in the alternative, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in ...

Hemla Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Wealth

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)66ITD363(Delhi)

1. These cross-appeals, one by the assessee and other by the Revenue are directed against the order dt. 30th March, 1992, passed by the CWT(A) for asst. yr. 1987-88. "(1) The learned CIT(A), Faridabad erred in holding that the land leased out to R. Narayan Dying & Printing Mills Ltd., was not land appurtenant to the factory building and hence, exempt in terms of cl. (VI) to sub-s. (3) of s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. (2) The learned CIT(A), Faridabad, erred in holding that the building, valued at Rs. 3,50,000 was not factory building exempt under cl. (VI) of sub-s. (3) of s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. (3) The learned CIT(A) erred in valuing the land at Rs. 9,00,000. Its value should have been taken at the book value as per r. 14(2)(ii) of Sch. III to the WT Act, 1957. (4) The learned CIT(A), Faridabad erred in valuing the building at Rs. 3,50,000. It should have been valued at its written down value in terms of r. 14(2)(i) of Sch. III to the WT Act, 1957." "(1) On the facts an...

S.T. Makhijan Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)376; 1998CriLJ2624; 1998(3)Crimes68; 1998(45)DRJ268; 1998RLR326

ORDERA.K. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for revisionist. The revision is against order dated 12.12.1995 passed by Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi whereby charge under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act has been directed to be framed against the revisionist.2. I have perused the impugned order. The plea taken before the concerned Magistrate by the revisionist was that the prosecution was launched only to defeat the injunction order dated 1.12.1992 passed by Shri C.K. Chaturvedi in favor of the revisionist and that the meter which was removed from the site did not belong to the accused. Here in this revision petition, one more plea is being taken that the provisions of Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act had not been complied with and as such cognizance could not have been taken, Learned counsel for the revisionist says that in the lower court, an application for discharge was moved but it was rejected. That rejection order is not bein...

All India Lawyers Union (Delhi-unit) Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1998Delhi937

ORDERCW-4076/97 & CW-1163/98 1. In respect of the working of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals certain directions were issued by this Court in terms of the orders dated 17th October, 1997 and 15th December, 1997.2. Mr. Vasudeva, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarter is present in court. He has brought to our notice a Circular dated 19th December, 1997 issued of District Dy. Commissioner of Police and to Dy. Commissioner of Police (Crime) and Indira Gandhi International Airport and Traffic, bringing to the notice of the said officers the requirement of each police station under their respective jurisdiction to send information to MACT in respect of the accidents in the prescribed proforma in compliance of report on implementation of Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicle Act. From the said circular, it appears that the headquarter is monitoring the matters of sending all the FIRs by Police Stations on MACT. We hope that the police authorities would continue to perform its functions ...