Delhi Court May 1998 Judgments

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Modi Arc Electrodes Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC473Tri(Delhi)

1. Shri N.K. Gaur, Commercial Manager of the appellant is present and seeks an adjournment on the ground that counsel is busy in a Civil Court in Meerut. We do not find this a valid ground for adjournment and accordingly we decline the request for adjournment. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR, and perused the papers.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of welding electrodes was receiving security deposits from all wholesale buyers but had not included the notional interest on the security amount in the assessable value for the purpose of determining and paying Central Excise duty.The dispute in this appeal relates to the period 1982-83 to 1989-90 up to July, 1989. Show cause notice was issued stating that the security amounts received from wholesale buyers had been used as working capital, instead of borrowing an equivalent amount from Commercial Banks and therefore, notional interest at 18% should have been included in the assessable value. The notices proposed demand of total dif...

Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Pari Plast Private Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC255

1. These are appeals against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad dated 30.5.91 involving a common issue.2. The respondents have not appeared in spite of notice. However, since prima facie. the matter appears to be a settled issue. We have heard learned DR and perused the records.3. Learned DR stated that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE Tapes from HDPE granules. They had filed classification list under sub-heading No. 3926.90 attracting nil rate of duty under Notification No. 53/88 dated 1.3.88 on the ground that these tapes were articles of plastics. The A.C. classified their product under Sub-heading No. 5406.90 and confirmed the demand of duty.The Collector (Appeals) allowed the parry's appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the HDPE tapes are manufactured of HDPE granules; As such, these cannot be considered to be made of synthetic textile materials.Even in trade parlance, the product is referred to and is known as HDPE tapes and not...

Prag Vanaspati Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(59)ECC181

1. These are two appeals against the Orders of the Collector (Appeals) Nos. 131-132-C.E./KNP/88, dated 8-8-1988.2. The learned Counsel stated that the issue involved in this case relates to classification of 'Acid Oil'.3. The basic issue is squarely covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Kusum Products, Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, in which it has been held that Acid Oil was classifiable under T.I. 12 and not under T.I. 68. It was also his submission that this decision in the case of Kusum Products (sic), reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 636 (sic) has been followed in other cases also including those reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 479 and 1987 (30) E.L.T. 955. In response to a query from the Bench the learned Counsel further stated that in authoritative book "Bailey's Industrial Oil and Fat Products" also Acid Oil is recognised as Oil and the Tribunal has also taken note of the manufacturing process and recorded in its order in the case of Kusum Products and...

Mukul Sharma Vs. Govt. of Nct of New Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1999)ILLJ620Del

ORDERCyriac Joseph, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is against the action of respondent No. 3 in not permitting the petitioner to be represented in the enquiry proceedings by Mr. B.K . Paul who is stated to be an official of a trade union of working journalists of which the petitioner is a member. The request of the petitioner was turned down by respondent No. 3 on the ground that Mr. B.K. Paul, though an official of a trade union of working journalists is a practicing lawyer. The contention of the petitioner is that the certified Standing Orders applicable to the petitioner do not prohibit the petitioner being represented by an official of a trade union of wonting journalists even if such official is a practicing lawyer. Mr. Birbal, appearing for respondent No. 2 very fairly submitted that if Mr. B.K. Paul is an official of the trade union of working journalists of which the petitioner is a member, he is entitled to represent the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings as per ...

Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. Vs. Vinod Bala Kohli

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. only question raised in this Revision Petition is whether the District Forum had jurisdiction to decide the case without taking into consideration the written version filed by the opposite party (OP). In order to appreciate this question, only a few facts need be stated. 2. The complainant sent some gas stoves to M/s. Giri Enterprises Thrissur, Kerala on 25.10.1993 through Economical Transport Organisation (ETO). The documents were routed through Lord Krishna Bank, Thrissur, the Banker of the consignee with instructions to the Bank to release the goods on payment. Lateron, the instructions were revised and the Bank advised to release the goods on payment of a post-dated cheque for Rs. 23,055/-. The goods were accordingly released by the Bank on payment of the cheque which was duly forwarded by the Bank to the complainant. The cheque was, however, returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds The case of the complainant was that the Bank had accepted the cheq...

icpa Health Products P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC197

1. The above appeals involve common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. ICPA Health Products (P) Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products and preparations for oral or dental hygiene falling under Sub-heading 3003.10 and 3306.00 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 respectively.They were availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No.175/86-CE dated 1.3.86 as they had not crossed SSI limit up to 14.6.88.They had classified their products viz. (1) Hexiprep (2) Hexiscrub (surgiscrub) and (3) Hexiaqua under Sub-heading 3003.10 and paid duty under Notification No. 29/88-CE dated 1.3.88 at 10% adv. BED and 5% SED which appeared to the Department to have been paid incorrectly. The Chemical Examiner opined from the contents of the labels of all the 3 products that Chlorhexidine Gluconate Solution BP had therapeutic properties and used as disinfectant which is specifically covered und...

Kapoor Lamp Shade and C . Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT376TriDel

1. In this case a demand of differential duty of Rs. 19,46,981 /- has been confirmed against the applicants holding that they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 for lamps and light fittings manufactured and cleared with the brand name of another person not eligible to the benefit of the notification. A penalty of Rs. 20 lacs has also been imposed. The period in dispute is May 1989 to November 1989.2. Learned Counsel for the applicants Ms. Ginni Bedi contends that the brand name "Love Lites" was a family name and the right to use the said brand name had been assigned to the sole proprietor of the applicant herein and therefore the applicants are manufacturing and clearing goods with their own brand name and hence had rightly availed of the benefit of SSI Notification No. 175/86. Her next submission is that the demand is barred by limitation since it was within the knowledge of the department that the applicants were using the brand name "Love lites" on their go...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Icpa Health Products P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT598TriDel

1. The above appeals involve common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. ICPA Health Products P.Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products and preparations for oral of dental hygiene falling under sub-heading 3003.10 and 3306.00 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 respectively.They were availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as they had not crossed SSI limit upto 14-6-1988. They had classified their products viz. (1) Hexiprep, (2) Hexiscrub (surgiscrub) and (3) Hexiaqua under sub-heading 3003.10 and paid duty under Notification No. 29/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 at 10% adv.BED and 5% SED which appeared to the Department to have been paid incorrectly. The Chemical Examiner opined from the contents of the labels of all the 3 products, that Chlorhexidine Gluconate Solution BP had therapeutic properties and use as disinfectant which is specifically c...

Polo Singh and Co. (industry) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT416TriDel

2. The appellants herein cleared their excisable product falling under Chapter Heading 8459.00 amounting to Rs. 20,35,800/- upto the August, 1988 which included the clearances of Rs. 17,05,800/- for export. They also cleared machineries of Chapter Heading 8459 valued at Rs. 5,85,0007- without payment of Central Excise duty at the rate of 5%. It was, therefore, alleged by the Revenue that clearances of machinery under the said heading was cleared without payment of duty to the tune of Rs. 29,250/- (BED) and Rs. 1,462.50/-(SED). The adjudicating authority confirmed the aforesaid amount on the ground that the export clearances cannot be excluded for the purpose of computing the aggregate clearances mentioned in the said Notification.3. The appellants did not succeed before the lower appellate authority.Hence, this appeal before the Tribunal.4. The learned Advocate, Shri Naveen Mullick has submitted that mere perusal of Notification No. 175/86 indicates that the clearances mentioned in th...

Topcel Tapes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1132TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 20-5-92 passed by the Collector, C. Ex., Aurangabad.2. Shri Ramcharan, Managing Director appeared on behalf of the appellants and submitted that in this case, the demand is time-barred as the show cause notice was issued on 14-9-90 for the period 1-3-86 to 30-11-86 and in the show cause notice, it was alleged that the appellants had misdeclared the product and suppressed the fact to evade payment of duty. He submitted that regarding the same product, the Revenue on 16-6-88 issued a show cause notice for the period 1-3-88 to 31-7-88 which was adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector of C. Ex. vide his order dated 17-4-89 and the demand was dropped. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Collector, C. Ex. against this order which was dismissed as time-bar by the Collector, C. Ex. vide order dated 25-5-92. He submitted that the Revenue as aware of the activity and manufacturing process of the product and in the year 1987 ...