Delhi Court June 1998 Judgments

Micro Tips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC391Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal, dated 1-10-1991 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The appellant made import of four automatic machine type PM - 20 for manufacture of Metallic Refill tips and claimed classification of the machine under 8479.89 of Customs Tariff and also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. The adjudicating authority classified the goods under 8457.30 of the Customs Tariff and claimed the benefit of notification. The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by the impugned order.2. Ld. Counsel submits that machine has only one definite function by different operations combined into one single machine for the purpose of ultimately manufacturing ball point refill tips. The brass slug undergo various processes such as first turning, second turning, collect closing, facing centering, capillary, hole control check, ball seat, ink channel, ball filling, balls lammering etc. before becoming a complet...

Shankar Sugar Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT970TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Shankar Sugar Mills, the issue for our consideration is whether the central excise duty under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff could be demanded in respect of bagasse during the period 1-3-1975 to 29-3-1975 when the show cause notice was issued on 26-9-1986. The Revenue had taken a view that after the amendment in Rules 9 and 49 by Notification No. 20/82-C.E., dated 20-2-1982, there was no bar for demanding duty beyond the period of limitation as prescribed Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The duty involved in these proceedings amounts to Rs. 11,790.60.2. We have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, Advocate for the appellants and Shri D.K. Nayar, DR, who appeared for the respondents/Revenue. There is no dispute as regards the facts of the case. The appellants were engaged, among other commodities, in the manufacture of the bagasse, which became excisable and dutiable with effect from 1-3-1975 on introduction of Item No. 68 in th...

Collector of Customs Vs. Trimurti Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC515

1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Customs, Madras against the Order-in-Original dated 27-11-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Madras. The appeal has been filed as directed by Central Board of Excise & Customs vide their Order No. 93-R dated 4-10-1990 in exercise of the review powers under Section 129D(1) of Customs Act. The point agitated in the appeal is that while Additional Collector had agreed with the proposal in the show cause notice for enhancement of the assessable value from the declared value of Rs. 1,76,837/-to Rs. 4,04,604/- he did not confiscate the goods under Section 111(m) and 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of Import & Export (Control) Act, 1947. It is urged in the appeal that the charge of mis-declaration of value having been upheld leading to the enhancement of the assessable value, the Additional Collector should have accepted the proposal to confiscate the goods and impose fine in lieu of confiscation for p...

Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(80)LC826Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellant had been selling his goods to buyers situated in different zones at different prices by offering varying rates of discounts. The varying rates of discounts were disallowed by the departmental authorities and the lowest discount applied. The decision of the Assistant Collector having been upheld by the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed.2. Arguing the case of the appellant, Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Counsel stated that the issue of different prices to buyers in different zones has been decided in a number of cases. He referred to the Tribunal decision in Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd. which decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissal of the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. The Tribunal decision in question relied upon an earlier decision of the Tribunal Goramal Hariram and a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Rayon Industries v. UOI .3. In view of the submissions made by Shri Agarwal citi...

Smithkline Beecham Consumer Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT216TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original, dated 30-4-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi by which a duty demand of Rs. 18,03,484.00 was confirmed against the appellants herein and a penalty of Rs. one lakh imposed. The matter relates to disallowance of Modvat credit on the ground that malted food extracts called "DMI-70" manufactured by the appellants were not in fact used as an input in the manufacture of the appellants' final products, namely, malted food products "Horlicks" and "Boost" classifiable under Chapter subheading 1901.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. The appellants operate two factories, one at Nabha in Punjab and another at Ballabgarh near Faridabad in Haryana. Both the factories use duty-paid raw materials in the manufacture of final products in terms of declaration made under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for taking Modvat credit on the inputs. They manufactured DMI-70 at their Nabha f...

Palas Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT166TriDel

1. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the benefit of Notification No. 59/88, dated 1-3-1988 is available to the printed cartons.2. Shri Sridharan, learned Advocate, submits that the appellants purchased corrugated board as well as duplex board and the duplex board is laminated with the corrugated board purchased from the market on payment of duty. Such board is part of corrugated board and falls under Heading 48.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. He submits that Notification No. 59/88, dated 1-3-1988 provides exemption from payment of duty to the printed cartons made out of paper and paper board falling under Heading 48.08. As the printed cartons have been made out of paper board falling under Heading 48.08 the benefit of the notification has to be extended to the printed cartons. In support of his contention, he relies upon the decision of Dhruvco Printers (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., New Delhi -1996 (85) E.L.T. 62 in which it was held that printed cartons are exempted unde...

Varun Singhi Vs. T.S. Nagar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The complainant entered in to an agreement dated 30th November, 1995 with Mr. T.S. Nagar, Proprietor Neerv Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party for the construction of first floor of the House No. A-41 Nirman Vihar. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party left the work incomplete and failed to remove certain glaring defects. Opposite party admitted specified short-comings in a writing dated 22.6.1996. Payment in terms of that writing was made by the complainant but the respondent failed to complete the work and remove the defects. The complainant sent two telegrams dated 29.5.1996 and 11.6.1996 and seven letters in detail but failed to elicit any reply to any of them. According to the complainant, the work left incomplete or defective would require an amount of Rs. 1,34,000/- to rectify the defects and complete the same. Having failed to get the needful done, he approached District Forum. The opposite party appe...

Smithkline Beechem Consumer Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC595Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal against the order in appeal dated 29-11-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh rejecting the appeal filed before her by the appellant against the Order-in-Original of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patiala. The Assistant Collector by his said order disallowed deductions claimed by them in their price lists under the head "distribution charges and sales tax". On both these points the Collector (Appeals) upheld the findings of the Assistant Collector and rejected the appeal leading to the present appeal.2. Appellant has sent a letter in reply to the hearing notice that the matter may be decided on merits in the light of several judgments covering the issues involved. Such issues have been indicated as - (1) Disallowance of distribution expenses as non-admissible abatement in arriving at the assessable value of the products. (2) Allowability of sales tax borne by the company as an admissible abatement in arriving at the asses...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Laxmi Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC404

1. Since common arguments are advanced by the JDR and both the learned Counsels for the respondents, we dispose of the appeals by a common order.2. Both these appeals have been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi on a common issue regarding the proper interpretation of Notification 175/86 dated 1.3.86 as to its applicability in cases where a factory registered with the Directorate of Industries shifts its location to another premises and continues to avail the benefit of the aforesaid exemption during the period when the registration is not with reference to the new address.3. Both the respondents were registered with the Directorate of Industries and were availing the exemption under the aforesaid Notification when they were operating from their original premises.When they shifted their factory to different locations they applied and obtained L-4 licence from the departmental authorities. As regards the requirement of registration with the Directorate of Industries as...

Prag Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT62TriDel

1. In this Appeal the only question raised is whether the goods manufactured by the Appellants are classifiable under Chapter Heading 4016.19 as claimed by the Appellants and approved by the first Adjudicating Authority or they are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8607.00 as claimed by the Department and agreed to by the Collector (Appeals).2. Appearing for the Appellants, ld. Counsel, Shri T.K. Srivastava, stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz, vulcanized rubber products other than hard rubber particularly of rubber and rubber to metal bonded items used as a part of Railways. Initially, appellants classified the items under Heading 4016.19 (vulcanised rubber products other than hard rubber) in their classification list submitted on 13-5-1989 which was changed to 8607.00 (Parts of Railways or Tramways Locomotive Rolling Stock) at the instance of Range Supdt. They, however, revised the classification to 4016.19 with effect from 1-4-1992 on w...