Delhi Court July 1998 Judgments

Anil Kumar Rai Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT492TriDel

1. This Appeal is filed by Shri Anil Kumar Rai against imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and confiscation of his 2 trucks and their redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 1.5 Lakh each.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 29-5-1996, Customs Authorities intercepted Truck No. UHX 308 at Dohrighat on Gorakhpur-Varanasi Highway. Shri Phoolchand was the Driver and with him Shri Ramjeet was sitting in the Truck. On search of the Truck, 10 Bags of Chinese Silk Yam were recovered from the hood of the truck. Another Truck No. UHX 307 was parked on the otherside of the Bridge. On search of the hood of the truck, 9 bags of Chinese Silk Yarn were recovered.Shri Phoolchand, Driver in his statement dated 29-5-1996 stated that Shri Jiut Ram, Munim of Shri Anil Kumar Rai had told him that if he transported the Chinese Silk Yarn, on return after delivery of the boulders, he will be paid some money; that he had discussed this aspect with Shri Anil Kumar Rai. Shri Phoolchand, Driver in hi...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT581TriDel

1. The assessees imported goods and took the Modvat credit of the CV duty paid. The rate of the CV duty initially was shown as 20% which was later corrected on the original and duplicate copies of the bill of entry as 30% and the duty was calculated and paid accordingly. On the triplicate copy however these corrections were not incorporated.Therefore although the duty was paid at the rate of 30% the credit taken by the assessee was a sum calculated at the rate of 20%. The duty was paid on 8-6-1995 and the credit was taken on 20-6-1995. Later when the assessees realised their error, they took the differential credit on 24-5-1996. The Assistant Collector after issue of show cause notice denied the differential credit later taken, citing the provisions of Rule 57G(2) as amended by Notification No. 28/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-6-1995. He also rejected the arguments of the assessee to the effect that the additional credit taken by them was in the nature of variation of credit under Rule 57....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dayasons Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT126TriDel

1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri D.S. Negi, SDR.Respondents were not present, having requested for the decision on merits.2. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector vide his Order dated 14-2-1990 classified the product "Pressed steel Radiators for Transformers" under subheading 84.04 on the logic that they were parts of transformers but rejected the assessees' claim for benefit under Notification No. 160/86, dated 1-3-1986. The Collector (Appeals) in his impugned order held that the impugned goods were parts of transformers and not a transformer. In this manner, it was not covered by the exclusion and could benefit from the subject notification. In the appeal memoradum it has been claimed that a part of the machine which is suitable for use solely or principally with that kind of particular machine would merit classification under the same heading as that of the main machine. It is, therefore, claimed where a machine stood excluded, the part also would stand excluded....

industrial Cables India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC520Tri(Delhi)

1. In this case refund claim of Rs. 31,434.72 for the month of April, 1991 has been rejected on the ground that the assessees had not filed revised price list claiming discount of 7.5%. Assessees, under an agreement, were to supply 25 Km. of cables at the rate of Rs. 5,64,000 per KM ex-works. They filed price lists with effect from 5-4-1990 in Part-II. Cables were to be supplied in standard drum length of 600/800 Mts plus 5% tolerance as per purchase order conditions. The appellants despatched 22.13 Km. in standard length and balance 2.831 Km. in non-standard length. After clearance of the goods in accordance with the price list approved by the department they wrote to the department seeking revision of price on the ground that part of the quantity of cables were of non-standard length and there was a price reduction, while the assessees had already paid duty on the full value of Rs. 5,64,000 per Km. Both the authorities below have rejected the refund claim.2. We have heard Shri J.P. ...

Ranpur Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT495TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal is the Central Excise classification of bearings for water pumps. The 'Central Excise authorities have classified the products under 84.82 while appellant claims that the correct classification would be under Heading 87.08.The appellant's claim is on the basis that these bearings are for use in water pumps which are meant for motor vehicles -like Fiat Car Ambassador Car, Jeep etc. He submits that classification should appropriately be based on criterion of use.2. None appeared for hearing but the appellants have Written a letter saying that the case may be decided on merit. Shri R.S. Sahghia, learned JDR 'Submits that Tariff Item 84.82 specifically covers "Ball or Roller bearings".He also submits that when the tariff heading in terms covers an item the correct classification would be under that heading. He also drew our attention to H.S.N. Notes to Section XVI (84.82) Which reads as under :- "This heading does not cover machinery parts incorporatin...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Steel and Steel Fabricators

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)69ITD124(Delhi)

1. These three appeals filed by the Revenue separately in the cases of three parties are taken up together and disposed of by common order.This is for the reason that the facts are common and the finding in one case has a direct bearing on the others.2. Facts in brief as gathered from the orders of the Revenue authorities as well elaborated on both sides are that the searches were conducted in the premises of Steel & Steel Fabricators, Industrial Fabricators and Mohit Steel Febricators on 17th January, 1989. On the basis of documents as discovered in the premises and on the strength of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ladhu Ram Taparia vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 521 (SC) and in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), the registration granted to three firms was cancelled under the s. 186(1) of the IT Act. The firms were treated as unregistered and the income of the two firms namely Industrial Fabricators and Mohit Steel Fabricators wa...

Goodearth Engines (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is a bunch of six appeals by the assessee relating to different assessment years i.e., 1980-81 to 1982-83, 1984-85 to 1986-87 involving identical issues, hence consolidated and being disposed of by single order for the sake of convenience. 1. That the CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi has grossly erred on facts and in law in holding that the business of the appellant company has been discontinued during the year. 2. That the CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi has grossly erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO in treating the interest income of Rs. 42,205 as "Income from other sources" instead of business income.3. In ground No. 2 in all these appeals, the interest income involved was to the extent of Rs. 42,205, Rs. 31,940, Rs. 41,543, Rs. 60,426, Rs. 37,965 and Rs. 15,259 for the asst. yr. 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 respectively.4. Facts relating to these grounds for asst. yr. 1980-81 are like that assessee is a closely held private limited compan...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Simba Chips (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT990TriDel

1. Question involved in the present matter is regarding the classification of Popcorn and demand of duty for the period prior to 1-3-1987 under the New Tariff effective from 28-2-1986. The original authority held the product classifiable under Tariff Heading 1904.10 and also demanded the consequential duty for the entire period before 1-3-1987 and after 1-3-1987.2. On appeal by the respondents herein, before the lower appellate authority, the findings of the lower appellate authority namely the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) are as follows :- "I find, that the classification of the subject 'Popcorn' was a subject matter for consideration in another order of Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division-VII, dated 1-7-1987 arising from a Show Cause Notice issued a few days before the impugned Show Cause Notice's dated 11-7-1987. A finding was reached by the Assistant Collector classifying the subject product 'Popcorn' packed in unit containers under Chapter sub-heading 1904.90 a...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Prachi Graphics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT200TriDel

1. The activity undertaken by the Respondents herein is dilution of P.V.A. solution obtained by them on payment of duty. They had filed classification lists dated 1-4-1990 indicating the process of dilution of P.V.A. as not a process of manufacture resulting in excisable commodity. As the Assistant Collector held that the dilution of duty paid P.V.A. solution was the result of manufacture and that the diluted product falls classification under C.E.T. sub-heading 3905.20 by application of Note 6 of Chapter 39 which states that conversion of one primary form into other form shall amount to manufacture. Collector (Appeals) while disposing of two orders of the Assistant Collector on the classification and demand of duty, upheld the contention of the assessees that the form before dilution was also solution, and the form even after dilution remains solution and hence it was not a case of conversion of one primary form into other so as to attract duty notwithstanding anything contained in N...

Preet International Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT649TriDel

1. Matter called. None for the appellants despite the notice of hearing having been served by registered post on 24-6-1989. In the circumstances, we have heard ld. SDR for the Revenue. We have also gone through the impugned order and the appeal memo filed by the appellant herein. The goods mentioned in the invoices available on record indicate that the appellants imported electric grease pump Model MSK-602, Pneumatic Grease Pump Model ASX 102, Timer for MSK Pump and ASK pump, Single Cycle Oil Distributor and single cycle oil distributor of another kind. Apart from the goods mentioned in the invoice, it was found on the examination of the goods that 40 pieces of oil distributors are there as against 20 oil distributors mentioned in the invoice. Thus there was excess of 20 pieces of oil distributors valued at Rs. 35,251/-.1.1. Adjudication proceedings were drawn against the appellant for the excess goods found and were confiscated under Section 111(1). However, the redemption was allowe...