Delhi Court April 1998 Judgments

Jyoti Rubber Udyog (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT75TriDel

3. Ld. Consultant submitted that the issue relates to admissibility for Modvat credit of endorsed invoices under Notification 15/94. He submits that the appellants had received inputs under cover of invoices issued by Depot as well as invoices issued by the manufacturer on which Depot's endorsements were made. The appellants [due] to clerical mistake had entered the endorsed invoices in their RG 23A Pt. I Register. The ld. Asstt. Collector had held in favour of the applicants. However, the Collector (Appeals) without going into the factual aspects of the matter had reversed the Asstt. Collector's order. Ld. Consultant submitted that the applicants had, in these circumstances, a strong case on merits.2. Ld. DR submitted that there is extensive case law on the inadmissibility of endorsed invoices for Modvat credit purposes.However, since the matter involves verification of factual position he leaves it to the Bench.3. Considered submissions of both sides. Ld. Consultant had invited my a...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Uni Deritend Precision Castings

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT860TriDel

1. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 24-2-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay setting aside the Order-in- Original, dated 26-2-1991 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.2. Respondent (Uni Deritend Precision Castings), engaged in the manufacture of castings, filed price lists in relation to castings to be supplied to M/s Mahindra & Mahindra and M/s. Geep Industrial Syndicate. It was found that both the buyers were advancing some money to the respondent. Show cause notice was issued stating that interest on the advance amount had not been included in the assessable value declared in the price lists though it should have been included and if equivalent amount of money had been borrowed from the Bank, appellant would have incurred interest liability, and proposing to approve the price lists after including the element of interest in the assessable value. The Assistant Collector confirmed t...

Collector of Customs Vs. Xaca India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT696TriDel

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of respondents inspite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up for final disposal in the absence of the respondents.2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 9-2-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. In the impugned order, the Collector of Customs, held that Tungsten Halogen Lamps imported by the respondents are for laparoscope and entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 200/82-Cus.4. The respondents had imported Tungsten Halogen Lamps and in the bill of entry the respondents described the goods as Tungsten Halogen Lamps 'Spares for Medical Equipment'. The respondents claimed the benefit of Notification No. 200/82-Cus., dated 25-8-1982. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification on the ground that the catalogue of goods in question shows that the application of the item in question for photography, video-recording, stage lighting including that for lapa...

Rohit Prakash Goyal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are three appeals by the assessee against common order of the CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi pertaining to asst. yrs. 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, and the issues have been disposed of by the CIT(A) by a consolidated order, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are also disposed of by this common order.3. The assessee has raised 14 grounds challenging validity of the reopening of assessments under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, for these three years and also the view of the CIT(A) that the sales transaction made to his HUF, is sham transaction and thereby confirming the recasting of the P&L a/c and determining the total income at Rs. 12,92,080, Rs. 13,52,290 and Rs. 29,64,200 for the asst. yrs. 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 vide assessment order dt. 29th March, 1996, instead of income declared and accepted by intimation under s. 143(1)(a) at Rs. 5,52,80, Rs. 2,34,290 and Rs. 2,30,950 for the asst. yrs. 1993-9...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Texel Plastic

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT286TriDel

1. The ld. Collector (Appeals) in his Order held that the contention of the Asstt. Collector in classifying the product in question under Chapter sub-heading 3920.38 is not acceptable since the product is appropriately classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3926.90 as other articles of plastic. Being aggrieved by this Order, Revenue has filed the present appeal before us.2. The facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of double side coated/laminated man-made fabrics (HDPE fabrics coated with LDPE on both sides) as well as articles of such material commonly known and marketed as Tarpaulins, falling under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to CETA 1985. The Appellant filed Classification lists effective from 25-7-1992 and another classification list effective from 29-9-1992 and claimed classification of the above product under Chapter subheading 3926.90 with NIL rate of duty under Notification No. 53/88, dated 11-3-1988. The Asstt. C...

P. Ahuja and Sons Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT102TriDel

1. The assessees declared their intention to avail of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as prescribed in paragraph (a)(i) which prescribed a concessional rate of duty where the manufacturer had availed of the Modvat credit facility. Clause (ii) in this paragraph provided for complete exemption from payment of duty for the aggregate clearances of Rs. 30 lakhs limited to clearances of Rs. 15 lakhs for single commodity. During 1-4-1989 to 30-9-1989 the assessees cleared the goods at concessional rates of duty but did not claim Modvat. Show cause notice dated 25-10-1989 was issued alleging that they were liable to pay the tariff rate of duty and thereby demanding differential duty.The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the confirmation. The logic of both the authorities was that once the assessee had chosen a particular path, he was required to comply with the conditions laid there- under. The present appeal is against this order.2. Shri J.P. Kau...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Navrang Cine Centre (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT144TriDel

1. The issue for determination in these four appeals is the excisability of Hypo-solution for developing of cinematographic films.The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of cinematographic films exposed and developed, falling under Chapter Heading No. 3706 of CET, 1985. They purchased hypo-granules from the open market which are put into water along with certain other photographic chemicals to make a solution. The stand of the Department is that the preparation of Hypo-solution from the duty paid granules amounts to manufacture and waste of Hypo-solution is also goods known in the market and hence chargeable to duty.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Madan, ld. SDR in Appeal Nos. E/2014/93-C, 2013/93-C and 2017/93-C and Shri H.K. Jain, ld. JDR in Appeal No.E/5441 /92-C and have perused the records.3. In the case of M/s. Navrang Cine Centre (P) Ltd., the respondents have asked for a decision on merits following the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Famous Cine Labor...

Glossy Colour and Paint Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT36TriDel

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty amount of Rs. 14,088/-and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The learned Counsel Shri Naveen Mullick submits that the differential duty demand arises out of classification of the product manufactured by the applicants herein namely Aluminium Paint and Leak Stop Compound and Black Bituminous. According to the applicant Aluminium paint falls for classification under Heading 3292.00 while the other two products are classifiable under Heading 2715.90. The applicants also contend that they are entitled to exemption under Notification No. 114/73 for Oxide/ Lime colour and exemption under Notification No. 76/86 for Leak [Stop] Compound and Black Bituminous. While the issue as to benefit of notification for Oxide/Lime colour has been remanded for fresh consideration, the department has denied the benefit of Notification No. 76/86 for Leak Stop Compound and Black Bituminous. The learned Counsel submits that the products hav...

Super Steel Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC300Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal M/s. Super Steel Corporation have challenged the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II, dated 6-3-1989.The issue relates to assessable value of the goods cleared from the appellants' factory. By the impugned order, the Collector has confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 12,46,951.85 apart from imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- and a redemption fine of Rs. 1 lac.2. The appellants who are a partnership firm are a small scale unit registered with the Directorate of Industries. They are engaged in the fabrication of pressure vessels, storage tankers of all types and LPG tankers. By a show cause notice dated 20-2-1987, the Collector called upon the appellants to show cause why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 12,46,951.85 should not be recovered from them and why penalty should not be imposed and why the land, building, plant, machinery, materials, etc. should not be confiscated under Rule 173Q on the ground of wilful suppression of facts, clearance of go...

Travancore Cement Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT260TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Travancore Cements Pvt. Ltd. against the Order-in-Original No. 49/89, dated 26-9-1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner Central Excise, Cochin, the issues involved are whether the revolving screening plant machinery manufactured by the assessee is leviable to excise duty and whether the extended period of time for issuing the show cause notice under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was available to the department.2. M/s. Travancore Cements Ltd. manufacture white cement out of lime shell dradged from the bed of the Vembanad lake. For removing water and impurities from the lime shell they designed and made the revolving screening plant on their own and cleared the same in 1985 for placing it on dredger without payment of Central Excise Duty and without following the excise formalities. A show cause notice dated 12-6-1989 for demanding duty and imposition of penalty was issued to them. The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise in the impugned...