Delhi Court June 1998 Judgments

Super Chem Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT243TriDel

1. In these appeals the short question is whether the Spent Sulphuric Acid is liable to duty or not under Tariff Heading 3402.90. Ld.Advocate appearing for the appellant in Appeal No. 1 and for the respondents in Appeal No. 2 submits that the main question now is whether the said product 'Spent Sulphuric Acid' can be treated as 'goods' and a 'manufactured product'. He submits that it has been held by the Tribunal in relation to this very product in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Aureola Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 1998 (26) RLT 540 that the said product is not a result of manufacture and are not 'goods' as commonly known and understood in the trade and accordingly there is no duty liability on the said product. He submits that this is the latest judgment of the Tribunal relying on the well known propositions of law of the Apex Court. He therefore, prays for allowing his appeal in Appeal No. 1 and dismissing the Revenue's appeal in Appeal No. 2.2. Opposing the contention, ld. SDR Shri H.K. Jain...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shree Ram Rayons

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT225TriDel

1. In Order No. 250/97-D, dated 18-3-1997, the Tribunal went into the validity of the authorisation given by the jurisdictional Collector under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. On examination of the authorisation as also on perusal of the note sheets produced by the Revenue, the Tribunal concluded that the authorisation was issued by the Additional Collector who had not applied his mind before giving the authorisation on the issue whether the order was proper or not. On this ground appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The present application from the Revenue states that there is a mistake apparent on the face of our order which requires to be corrected.2. When the case was posted for hearing, none appeared for the applicants. We have heard Shri Sajan Narain, ld. Advocate for the respondents.3. In the grounds of the application, the following judgments have been relied upon :- 2. CCE, Patna v. Bihar State Sugar Corporation reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 174....

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shree Cement Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT150TriDel

1. This reference application is filed by the Revenue to refer the following question on the ground that question of law arises with reference to the Final Order No. 809/97-NB, dated 25-6-1997. "Whether the explosives used in mines for blasting limestone can be considered as inputs eligible for Modvat in terms of Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944." 2. Heard both sides. It was brought to our notice that the Tribunal on earlier occasions on the same issue has referred the matter to the High Court for its opinion since the Supreme Court has directed to make a reference to the High Court in the case of Indian Rayon Industries.3. In view of the submissions made by both sides and as the Supreme Court has already directed the Tribunal to make a reference to the High Court on an identical issue in the case of Indian Rayon Industries Ltd., we are of the view that this is a fit case for reference.Accordingly, the point of question is referred to the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court for its con...

S.K. Gems Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT208TriDel

1. The brief facts of the case are that on 21-9-1993 Customs Authorities examined a parcel addressed to the appellants herein and found that it contained 12 lots of cut and polished precious stones (emeralds) totally valued at Rs. 9,78,5127-. The value and weight tallied with the invoice but size of some of the lots did not tally with the invoice. A show cause notice was issued on the same day calling upon the appellants to produce necessary documents for lawful import of the goods, failing which the goods would be confiscated and penalty imposed. The appellants explained before the Deputy Collector that they have exported 16 packets of cut and polished emerald of different shapes to M/s. Bright Edelstein Gems, Germany and the German Co. had returned 12 lots. During the personal hearing, the expert opined that since the weight and the value of the stones tallied with the export invoice, the difference in size of certain pieces which could have been due to internationally accepted prac...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Wockhardt Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC517

1. Short question involved in this appeal is whether the product Albendazole Suspension falls under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 as Patent or Proprietary medicine - as contended by the Revenue - or under Tariff sub-heading 3003.20 as other than P or P medicines as contended by the respondents.Revenue's case in the show cause notice for treating the aforesaid product as a P or P medicine was that a cattle head was printed on the label of the medicine in question which can be considered as a symbol used in relation to the medicines so as to indicate the connection in the course of trade between the medicine and the respondents herein.2. As against the aforesaid contention, the respondents herein had contended before the lower appellate authority that cattle head was printed on the label in view of the provisions of the Drugs Act inasmuch as the medicine in question was only for use for animal consumption.3. The lower appellate authority decided the classification in favour of the respond...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Pyrene Rai Metal Treatment Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT244TriDel

1. Short question involved in this appeal is the question of classification of the two products described as follows :- (i) Ardrox PC 7905B/7906B - sample is an acidic aqueous solution of inorganic chemical "Sodium Chloride"; (ii) Ardrox PC 7905A/7906A - sample is an aqueous solution of inorganic chemicals like caustic soda and inorganic phosphates. In can find use as a degreasing agent.2. Before we deal with the arguments of both the sides, we would also like to reproduce the findings of the lower appellate authority which has held the classification of the two products under Tariff Heading 3823.90 in favour of the respondents herein. 4. I have considered the submissions. Here, there are two products, viz., Ardrox PC 7905 and PC 7906. PC 7905A and 7906A which are described as alkaline additive and 7905B which are described as oxidiser additive. From the literature furnished by the appellants, it is seen that PC 7905 and PC 7906 are for alkaline oxide chemical treatment of copper surf...

K.S. Ahluwalia Vs. M/S. U.P. State Industrial Dev. Corp. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mr. K.S. Ahluwalia, an Ex-serviceman, his wife and his unemployed graduate Engineer son applied for allotment of an industrial plot under a scheme floated by U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). He deposited Rs. 25,200/- for a plot of 1,000 sq. meters on Loni Road/Surajpur on 16.10.1989. The case of the complainant is that they fulfilled all formalities required in connection with the application. However, for reasons which were not disclosed, UPSIDC sent a cheque for Rs. 25,000/- on the ground that the applicants were not interested in the allotment. The grievances of the complainants are: (i) that the plot has not been allotted; (ii) that even though the amount was kept for nearly three years, no interest was paid; (iii) that a sum of Rs. 200/- was deducted while sending the cheque to the complainants without any justification. 2. The complainants in these circumstances, did not accept the cheque dated 24.7.1992 and returned the same un...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Nisha Gupta and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. By order dated 9.12.1994, District Forum-II, New Delhi disposed of three Complaints No. 196/94, Ms. Misha Gupta, 197/94, Dr. Sukhlal Gupta, 108/94 Dr. Mrs. Nisha Rani Gupta. Arrayed as opposite parties in these three complaints were (i) M/s. All Seasons Foods Ltd. and (ii) Punjab National Bank. The District Forum allowed the three complaints and directed both the opposite parties to refund the application money paid by the complainants alongwith 15% interest per annum compounded annually from the date of deposit to the date of payment in addition to Rs. 2,000/- in each case as damages for harassment and costs. It was further directed that in case of default in complying with the said order, the complainant shall be entitled to further interest @ 24% per annum on the total amount becoming payable under the order. Opposite party No. 2, the PNB have preferred this apepal. In order to appreciate the contentions raised before us, brief facts may be stated as und...

Parle Beverages Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC529

1. The question involved in the present appeal is whether the value of straws supplied along with the beverage known as 'Frooti' is to be included in the assessable value of the later product. The adjudicating authority namely Additional Collector, Central Excise, Bombay-3 has held as follows :- "The fact remains that without the straw these drinks are neither useable nor marketable." On these findings the adjudicating authority has held that the value of straw should be included in the assessable value. Hence this appeal has been filed in this Tribunal.2. Learned Advocate Shri Rohan Shah has assailed the above findings given by the adjudicating authority that without the straw, the drink 'Frooti' becomes non-marketable. He has drawn our attention to the packet of 'Frooti' which has on top of it a sealed small hole.According to him, with the help of the straw itself the aforesaid beverage is consumed. He, however, submits that one of the alternative method of consumption of the drink ...

Magnachem Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC519

1. Briefly stated the facts material for disposal of this appeal are as follows :- The appellants herein during the period 1988-89 were availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 but their aggregate clearances in that year of all excisable goods exceeded Rs. 1.5 crores. Therefore, they became ineligible to avail of the benefit of the said notification for the financial year 1989-90 inasmuch as their clearances during the preceding financial year had exceeded Rs. 1.5 crores as stated above. However, the Central Government in exercise of its power under Rule 8(1) issued a Notification No. 119/89-C.E., dated 27-4-1989 by which the eligibility limit was raised from Rs. 1.5 crores to Rs. 2 crores. The appellants therefore, again became eligible to avail of the benefit of Notification 175/86. Consequently, they filed a classification list effective from 1-4-1989 claiming the benefit of the said notification. The said classification list was approved. Thereupon, the appellants filed a r...