Delhi Court April 1998 Judgments

Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT556TriDel

1. Arguing on behalf of the Applicants in support of the Stay Applications the ld. Counsel submits that the issue involved in this case is denial of Mod vat credit on wires and cables. He submits that the issue involved in this case has been covered by series of decisions of this Tribunal accordingly he requests for stay of the impugned order.2. On the other hand the ld. DR submits that there are conflict views on the issues since S.R.B. is taking different view and accordingly the matter is pending before the Larger Bench. He submits that the S.R.B.has referred the matter in the case of Janwar Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Coimbatore in the Appeal No. E/1217/96 vide Order No. Misc. Order No.52/98 to the Larger Bench and the issue is pending.3. After careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and taking into consideration that the matter is before the Larger Bench we are of the view that the prima facie case is in favour of the party we waive the pre-deposit and stay the reco...

Woodburn Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT685TriDel

1. These are four stay applications filed by the above mentioned applicants praying for dispensing with pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts confirmed against them by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur by his order dated 28-11-1997.2. M/s. Woodburn Chemicals (P) Ltd. were called upon to show cause why duty should not be demanded from them for removal of excisable goods without payment of appropriate duty of excise and why penalty should not be imposed on them for contravention of Rules 9(1), 173F and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 173Q.3. M/s. Woodburn Chemicals (P) Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of basic Chromium Sulphate and Sodium Sulphate falling under Chapter Heading 2833.00. M/s. S.C. Manufacturers (SCM) and M/s. Sphenex Industries (SII) are also engaged in the manufacture of the same items.All the three units were operating from adjoining plots in industrial area at Unnao. Shri D.S. Sodhi, the other applicant for stay is the Managing D...

Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC403Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal, dated 11-4-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant made an import of spectrometer and filed a bill of entry for warehousing to the Delhi Customs House. The bill of entry was assessed and passed duty free in terms of Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-1981 as the appellant unit was a 100% export oriented unit licenced to manufacture and export for furfural. Ld. Counsel submits that a show cause notice was issued on the wrong assumption. He submits that in the show cause notice the respondents alleged that the provisions of Notification No. 123/81-C.E., dated 2-6-1981 were not complied with by the appellants. He submits that this notification relates to the excise duty on the capital goods for export oriented units. He submits that in this case it is not disputed by the respondents that the appellant made an import of the goods. Th...

Ahmed Oomerbhoy Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT577TriDel

1. These four appeals involve the common issue as to whether the commodity "Acid Oil" produced as a result of refining crude vegetable Non-Essential Oil by treatment with caustic soda and then treating the resulting soap stock with sulphuric acid was classifiable as vegetable Non-Essential Oil under Tariff Item 12 or under the residual Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff in force upto 28-2-1986. The appeals came to be heard by this Larger Bench as a result of the following three reference orders :- 2. The reference to the Larger Bench has been made as the Benches which heard these appeals earlier disagreed with the view taken by a three Member Bench of the Tribunal in Kusum Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta -1985 (19) E.L.T. 479 that Acid Oil attracted classification under Tariff Item 12 as Vegetable Non-Essential Oil. The brief factual details in these appeals are as follows.M/s. Prag Vanaspati Products (for short, PVP), manufacturing Acid Oil was payi...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pushfab Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT45TriDel

1. This is a Revenue Appeal. When the case was called none was present for the respondent and it is seen from the record that notice to the respondent has been received back undelivered with postal remark "party left".2. We are proceeding to dispose of the matter after hearing the ld.SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal.3. Ld. SDR submitted that the present appeal is against the Order-inAppeal dated 28-11-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The Collector (Appeals) had by the said order set aside the order of the Assistant Collector confirming a duty demand of Rs. 30,771.10 as Basic Excise Duty and Rs. 1,535.76 as Special Excise duty on items falling under Chapter 8607.00 against the Respondents. 4.1 The Respondents M/s. Pushfab Industries are manufacturers of two items falling under Chapter sub-headings 8431.00 and 8607.00 respectively of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In respect of Item 8431.00 they availed full exemption limit of Rs. 15 lakhs in ter...

Unitron Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC285Tri(Delhi)

1. Order-in-Original No. 34/89, dated 26-6-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi is under challenge in this appeal. On an earlier occasion, the Deputy Collector had passed the Order and that had been set aside by the Collector (Appeals) for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter the Competent Authority took up the adjudication.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture and supply of Computers including central processing units and principal devices. The appellant had supplied these excisable goods under two specific contracts to two buyers. Price Lists in Part II were filed along with copies of the contracts or purchase orders and on approval of the same, goods were cleared on payment of duty. The contracts referred to six items, namely, Computer System Hardware, Real Time Process Controller etc., Dot Matrix Printer, Pot Control Panels, Software and system engineering charges, and Installation and Commission Charges. Out of the six items, appellant declare...

Vinod Kumar Poddar Vs. Scici Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The undisputed facts of the case are that M/s. SCICI Limited, arrayed as opposite party No. 1, offered rights issue in November, 1992. The complainant, Vinod Kumar Poddar, was entitled to 800 rights share @ Rs. 10/- at a premium of Rs. 35/- i.e. @ Rs. 45/- per share. Exercising the right to apply for additional shares, the complainant, in fact, applied for 1,000 shares and deposited the application together with a cheque dated 7.12.1992 for Rs. 45,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, East of Kailash. The application and cheque were deposited with Bank of Baroda, Madhuban, Nehru Place, opposite party No. 3, which was the nominated Bank for making such application alongwith application money. The proceeds of the cheque namely Rs. 45,000/- were collected by the Bank of Baroda, opposite party No. 3 on 21.12.1992. The complainant received allotment advice only regarding 100 shares on 18.2.1993. He made enquiries from the opposite parties i.e. the Company, M/s. Tata Consu...

VipIn Bhardwaj Vs. Citi Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.5.1995 of the District Forum-II. The complainant himself is the appellant though the decision of the District Forum was ex parte. 2. The facts are that the appellant raised a Citi Mobile loan of Rs. 70,000/- from the respondent and for repayment of the loan he issued 36 post-dated monthly cheques of Rs. 2,613/- besides three cheques to cover the insurance premium of the car purchased by him. One more cheque was kept in reserve. The respondent vide letters dated 10.3.1992 and 25.1.1993 demanded Rs. 185/- and Rs. 217/- on account of post budget announcements towards interest tax on loans, which were paid by the appellant. However, his request to send a copy of such directions by Reserve Bank of India were not complied with. The respondent vide letter dated 9.9.1993 informed the appellant that 35 cheques had been encashed and that a sum of Rs. 7,595.36 was still outstanding in the loan account. In a letter d...

Escorts Tractors Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(77)LC293Tri(Delhi)

1. Shri R.P. Mishra, Manager of the appellant appeared before us and prayed for time. We have already disposed of appeal Nos.E/3494-3513/90-A filed by the present appellant against orders very similar to the orders impugned in these cases. The appeals were disposed of after hearing the Manager (Law) of the appellant. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to grant adjournment. We have heard Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR and perused the papers.2. The present dispute arises in relation to order-in-appeal No.12-24/92 dated 15.1.1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), modifying only in part the several orders passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector on various price lists filed by the appellant in 1989-90,1990-91. The majority of the tractors manufactured by the appellant, M/s. Escorts Tractors Ltd. were being sold to M/s. Escorts Ltd. at a price lower than the price at which the appellant was selling tractors to independent wholesalers. It is stated that the price list declared only...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Deccan Structural Systems

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT511TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of wooden shutters for windows and doors. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Yeshwanthpur Division, had classified the same under sub-heading No. 4410.90. The Department filed an application with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, on the ground that the goods in question should have been properly classified under sub-heading No. 4405.00. The view taken by the Department was that the wooden shutters were manufactured by cutting wood into various sizes and then by cutting, finger jointing, grooving and plaining, were used for purposes of fixing on the window and doors by the customers at their end. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, agreed with the view taken by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.2. The notice for today's hearing had been duly served on the respondents, M/s. Deccan Structural Systems, as per the acknowledgement card on record. When the matter w...