Delhi Court June 1998 Judgments

Wyeth Laboratories Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT691TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, dated 25-4-1991.2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants stated that the assessee are holder of Central Excise licence for the manufacture of goods falling under Tariff Item 14E and 68. The assessee classified 11 products, as drug intermediates under TI 68, and claimed exemption under Notification No.55/75, super ceded by Notification 234/82, dated 1-11-1982. It appeared to the department that the products in r/o which the assessee claimed the exemption under the aforesaid notification, were not drug intermediates and hence it appeared to the officers that the exemption claimed was not admissible to them. Therefore, the said products were held as liable to duty under TI-68. The assessee were manufacturing products mentioned hereinafter claiming classification under TI-68 and exemption under Notification 55/75 (as amended), superceded by Notification No. 234/82.The officers drew the samples of the aforesaid product...

LupIn Laboratories Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT170TriDel

1. M/s. Lupin Laboratories Ltd. manufacture bulk drugs and P & P medicaments. Some of the capital goods on which Modvat credit was claimed by them were disputed vide show cause notice dated 28-7-1995.The Commissioner in his Order dated 3-2-1997 held some capital goods as not admissible. Against this part of this order the assessee filed Appeal No. E/827/97-NB. In the same order the Commissioner held some of the capital goods as admissible. Against two of such items, the Revenue have filed Appeal No. E/1938/97-NB. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2. I have carefully examined the description and the function of the contested machinery and have also seen the citations in their regard.The eligibility of the various disputed items for benefit under capital goods is discussed below: The process involves reacting a number of chemicals in reaction vessels during the course of manufacture of drugs. The sampler is used to remove sample from the in-process materi...

JaIn Exports (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)68ITD126(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT, Delhi-II, New Delhi under section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 on 27-3-1997 for assessment year 1994-95.2. The assessee has raised as many as 10 grounds in the grounds of appeal. However, these grounds can be briefly summarised as under : 2.1. In ground Nos. 1 to 3, the assessee has challenged the validity of initiation of proceedings under section 263 and also the assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT under the said provision. The order passed by the CIT under section 263 has been challenged as being patently invalid.2.2. In ground Nos. 4 to 7, the assessee has challenged the finding given by the CIT holding that the redemption fine of Rs. 5 crores paid by the assessee-company being in the nature of penalty paid for infraction of law is not allowable as deduction. The A.O. failed to examine the aforesaid claim of the assessee. These findings given by the CIT have been challenged in ground Nos. 4 to 7.2.3. ...

Pahetronics Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT892TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE. for the period from July 1989 to September 1989 when their factory had shifted from its previous location to a different one, when the Registration certificate issued by the General Manager and the Deputy Commissioner of Industries, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat continued to show their original address. The appellant applied for change of address in registration from the State authority and got it in January, 1990. The department did not grant the benefit of exemption for the period when the appellant manufactured the specified excisable goods from their changed address on the ground that that was a different factory and that was not covered in the certificate issued by the State Industries Department. The Additional Collector of Central Excise after observing the required formalities passed the impugned order confirming the duty demand of Rs. 1,43,190.80 P besides imposing...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. themis Chemicals Industry Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT437TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is excisability of intermediate product viz. D2 Aminobutanol Hemitartrate arising in the course of manufacture of Ethambutal Hydrochloride - according to the Revenue the item is excisable and falls for classification under CET sub-heading 29.42 while according to the respondents, the product is not marketable, as it has a very short shelf life and is not a stable compound.2. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR and Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate.3. The department in the appeal before the Tribunal has relied upon the test result of the Chemical Examiner who has opined that D2 Aminobutanol Hemitartrate can be considered as a well defined single organic compound and the opinion of the Chief Chemist that it is a separate chemically defined compound and it is stable at normal temperature and pressure, as it does not undergo any abrupt chemical change and has definite shelf life under normal conditions of temperature and pres...

Damodar Ropeways and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT211TriDel

1. In this case demand of Rs. 27,55,480/- has been confirmed as duty on Aerial Ropeway Systems erected by the applicants herein at Naina Devi, Himachal Pradesh, under GET subheading 8428.90 and a penalty of Rs. 28,00,0007- has been imposed upon them. The applicants contend that the Ropeway System is immovable property and not goods within the meaning of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore no excise duty could be charged thereon. They also contend that the system before erection, consisting of parts of fabricated materials lying at the site of erection, also cannot be treated as ropeway system (teleferic) in an unassembled or knocked down condition by the application of Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, since this is not applicable in the present case where neither were all the parts lying assembled together at the erection site nor was it a case of simple assembly operation of all the parts so as to come within the ambit of Rule 2(a) o...

United Steel Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC398

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of specific excisable goods and they were availing the benefit of exemption notification No. 175/86 dated 1.3.86. The value of clearance of the goods falling under certain tariff heading having exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs, appellant was paying the duty on the same. The value of clearances of other specified goods however did not exceed Rs. 15 lakhs. Appellant continued to take the benefit of notification in respect of such other goods, even when the total value of clearance of all the goods had exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs.The said clearances were objected to by the department and show cause notice was issued seeking demand of duty on the clearances which were in excess of the said ceiling of Rs. 30 lakhs. Appellant resisted the notice but the same was overruled and Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. The order having been confirmed in appeal by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) the appellant has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. On beha...

Ramesh Kumar Malhotra Vs. Institute of Haematology

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Ramesh Kumar Malhotra, complainant, got admitted his daughter Rinki Malhotra to the Institute of Haematology for Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology (D.M.L.T. Course). His case was that the opposite party represented at the time of admission that the Institute was recognised by the Government as also the course imparted by it. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 8,035/- to the Institute as fee. In addition to complainants daughter 12 other students had taken admission to the same Institute. Out of them 11 students left as no proper education was imparted. Only one Vinayak Chaudhary and complainants daughter continued. Examinations were held on 13.6.1994. Vinayak Chaudhary was declared to have been passed but his daughter failed and was required no reappear in the next examination. The complainant reported the matter to the police. The opposite party issued a fresh result-sheet showing Rinki ...

Lajwanti Vs. Senior Divisional Manager L.i.C. of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Laxman Dass, now deceased, husband of Smt. Lajwanti, referred to as the complainant, deposited his Life Insurance Policy with the opposite party on maturity in order to receive the maturity value of Rs. 6,034.20 in January, 93. Laxman Dass failed to receive the amount and he, therefore, took-up the matter with L.I.C. He was informed that cheque for the amount of maturity value of the policy had been sent by registered post dated 11.1.1993. On 25.2.1993, Mr. Laxman Dass informed L.I.C. regarding the non-receipt of the cheque. He died on 20th June, 93. After his death, his widow Smt. Lajwanti took up the matter with L.I.C. She was informed vide letter dated 14.7.1993 that the matter was under investigation and she would be informed of the action taken. However, she failed to hear any thing further and was obliged to approach District Forum for necessary redressal. 2. The plea of the opposite party was that a payee account cheque in the name of Laxman Dass had...

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT115TriDel

1. The stay application seeks waiver of pre-deposit of a sum of Rs. 3,66,368/- demanded as Central Excise duty on certain quantity of Compact Discs (CDs) cleared by the applicant from his unit situated in NOIDA Export Processing Zone (EPZ) to domestic tariff area. The aforesaid amount was adjusted as due from them by the Asstt.Commissioner of Customs, NOIDA Export Processing Zone vide his letter dated 11-4-1996 which on appeal by the applicant was upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi leading to the present appeal and the connected Stay Application.2. It was stated by Shri G. Shiva Dass, learned Counsel for the applicant that their Unit is engaged in the manufacture of Compact Discs for which they had made necessary applications to the Development Commissioner, NEPZ vide their letter dated 24-8-1988. In response to their application the Government granted them necessary permissions for the manufacture of the product in question. It was explained by the learned Cou...