Delhi Court March 1998 Judgments

Collector of Customs Vs. Arnold Heinmann

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT341TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi dated 22-2-1989.2. Ld. DR stated that the respondent had imported the Floppy Diskettes vide Bill of Entry No. 30752, dated 5-7-1985 and classified the said goods under chapter heading No. 84.51/55(1) of the erstwhile Customs Tariff and paid the duty at the rate applicable to the said goods at the time of clearance. The respondent filed the refund claim vide their letter dated 3-10-1985 stating that the floppy diskettes are classified in other Customs Houses under BTM No. 92.01/13 at 100%. Basic duty plus 40% auxiliary duty and 12% CVD, whereas Delhi Customs has passed the consignment under BTM No. 84.51/55(1) and assessed @ 200% (Refunds), New Delhi.. 3. The A.C. (Refunds) vide its order No. 828/85, dated 29-7-1986 had rejected the claim on the grounds as mentioned and reproduced below: "The items imported in this case is floppy diskettes. They are used with computers. These are...

Ankur Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT146TriDel

1. Captioned 11 applications have been filed by the applicants for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty. This demand arose because of disallowance of deemed Modvat credit on re-rolling material obtained by the applicants from the railways. The lower authorities held that re-rollable material obtained by the assessee cannot be treated as duty paid inasmuch as it was the old and used material that was purchased by the applicants and used as re-rollable material.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that the Govt. of India order on deemed Modvat credit contained in F. No.342/1/88-TRU, dated 12-7-1990 does not stipulate any condition on payment of duty whatsoever it stipulates only three things and the three stipulations are that deemed Modvat credit will be available on re-rollable material of iron or steel purchased from outside; that it was either lying in stock on 7th day of July, 1992 and third that it was obtained after 7th July, 1992. Ld. Counsel submits that ...

U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT76TriDel

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, confirming a duty demand of Rs. 14,736/- being additional excise duty and special excise duty short paid during the period from 9-11-[1983] to 30-11-1983 and Rs. 1,974.38 being the duty short paid for the period between 1-3-1983 to 12-5-1983. The penalty of Rs. 500/- has also been imposed on the appellants. The case of the Department is that with the issue of Notification No.269/83-C.E. and Notification No. 270/83-C.E., both dated 9-11-1983, the basic excise duty leviable on levy sugar was Rs. 17/- and the additional excise duty was Rs. 21/-, while in the case of free sugar basic excise duty was Rs. 24/- and the additional excise duty leviable was Rs. 26/-. The appellants had, however, paid basic excise duty of Rs. 19/- in terms of Notification No. 28/83-C.E. and additional excise duty of Rs. 19/- in terms of Notification No. 29/83-C.E. (for levy sugar) and Rs. 31.80 basic excise duty...

Razdhan Group Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT980TriDel

1. Appellants in this case are aggrieved with the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dated 31-3-94 by which the order of the Assistant Collector demanding a duty of Rs. 25,617/- was confirmed against the appellants.2. Appellants imported two consignments of leather clicking knives on 30-4-90 and cleared the same classifying them under Chapter sub-heading 8208.90 claiming the concessional rate as per Notification No. 59/87.Subsequently the Department took the view that the items were chargeable to the 'standard rate' and a less charge demand for Rs. 25,617/- was issued. This was contested by the present appellants but the Assistant Collector who adjudicated the matter confirmed the less charge - demand relying on the decision of the Collector's Conference dated 8-3-90.3. When the matter came up in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) the Collector relying on the Single Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India reported in...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. J.D. Shukla and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC370

1. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco, was availing benefit of exemption Notification No. 20/75 and paying concessional rate of duty. Under this Notification, if the value of tobacco was Rs. 10.00 per kg. or less, duty in excess of 5% was exempt.In other words, this exemption was not available if the value of tobacco was more than Rs. 10.00 per kg. In respect of the period from 4.6.1975 to 14.3.1978 show cause notice dated 7.4.1978 was issued alleging that value of tobacco per kg. should be arrived at by dividing the total value or the package of tobacco by the net weight of the tobacco and on such calculation, the value of the tobacco would be more than Rs. 10.00 per kg. and the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the Notification and proposing demand of differential duty.Though the respondent resisted the notice, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand, but the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order confirming the demand. The Department...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Wood Polymers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1127TriDel

1. The assessees manufacture paper and cotton fabrics based laminates, insulators as also resin solution as inputs in the manufacture of such laminates and insulating boards. The assessees filed a classification list. The Assistant Collector classified paper based laminated decorative board, paper based/cotton based insulating boards and cotton fabrics based laminated industrial boards under subheading 3920.37 and the reactive solutions under sub-heading 3909.59. In his order-in-appeal, the Collector classified the paper based laminated decorative boards under sub-heading 4823.90. He classified paper based/cotton based insulating boards under Heading 8546 and the cotton fabrics based laminated industrial boards under sub-heading 3926.90. He held that the chemical solutions were unstable and had short shelf life. Finding that the goods were not marketable, he held that the solutions as not goods and consequently not chargeable to duty. In the present appeal from the Revenue, the classi...

Sterlite Indus. (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC49Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Sterlite Indus. (India) Ltd., had imported a consignment declared to contain copper scrap and filed the Bill of Entry No. 2546, dated 12-11-1991 for its clearance. The goods were examined and it was found that out of the total consignment of 41.429 M.T., the goods weighing 5.457 M.T. were copper wires. The rest of the goods were allowed clearance as waste and scrap, and the goods found to be copper wires weighing 5.475 M.T. were assessed to duty as copper wires.Proceedings were drawn against the importers and customs duty of Rs. 4,56,788.53 was demanded and a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed. No penal action was, however, taken in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate, stated that the importers were a reputed manufacturer of copper wire rods and they had imported the waste and scrap for melting in their furnace. The goods described by the examining officer as copper wires were for them the waste and scrap. He also stated that the val...

Polyfab Packaging Industries Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT108TriDel

1. These are three appeals filed by M/s. Polyfab Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd., being aggrieved with the three different orders passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. In all these three appeals similar issue arise for our consideration. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of High Density Polythylene Bags on Circular Looms. They claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 223/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986, as amended. It was their contention that no bag/sack could be manufactured on circular loom and that the fabric as coming out of the circular loom was not sacks. It was their contention that their case was not covered by the proviso to that notification and as such they were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 223/86-C.E. The appellate authority after referring to the provisions of the exemption notification held that the sacks manufactured by the appellants had been manu...

Ashok Kumar Chhabra and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)618; 72(1998)DLT291; 1998(45)DRJ65

Jaspal Singh, J.1. The petitioners who claim to be the owners of what is commonly known as Mobile Bitumen Concrete Mixing Plant filed a writ petition against the Union of India and Delhi Pollution Control Committee besides others for a direction to the respondents not to interfere in any manner in the working of that plant. It appears that the Supreme Court holding that the running of such plants was hazardous and noxious and thereforee required to be immediately stopped, had passed orders for relocation of such plants in- cluding the plant of the petitioners. The petitioners in the writ petition in question took the position that as they had adopted a modern technology with an inbuilt pollution control devices their plant could neither be held as hazardous nor noxious. Their grievance was that as their plant was non- polluting the authorities could not legally act under the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1981.2. On September 24, 1997 when the matter was taken up by Hon. ...

S.Y. Jayiiwhaeysh Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal has arisen from adjudication order No. DD/MAS/46/95, dated 28-4-1995 under which a consolidated penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed for contravention of section 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d), read with section 64(2) and section 8(1), read with section 64(2), of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). The appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000, i.e., 50 per cent of the amount of penalty. He prayed for waiver of pre-deposit in respect of balance amount. After hearing the parties and taking into account the fact that 50 per cent of the penalty and that an amount of Rs. 6,69,800 has been confiscated, I decided to waive the pre-deposit of the balance amount. This order disposes of the appeal on merits. 2. In my opinion, for the reasons hereafter discussed, the finding of contravention of section 9(1)(d), read with section 64(2), alone can be sustained and the finding of contravention of section 9(1)(b) and section 8(1), read with section 64(2), cannot be s...