Delhi Court July 1998 Judgments

Maschinenfabrik Polygraph Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT833TriDel

1. The facts involved in the impugned order are that the appellant had manufactured a chilling plant of 3 tons capacity and paid duty on the same. Subsequently on finding that this chilling plant is not adequate for the function they replaced its compressor with a compressor of 8 tonnes capacity and also incorporated the other changes necessary. The adjudication order holds that such upgradation of the chiliing plant by changing the compressor and other parts has brought into existence a new product which is liable to duty. The adjudication has also classified this product under Chapter heading 84.80. The appellants submitted that what was involved in the instant case was only modification/upgradation of an existing chilling plant on which duty had been paid. They contended that such upgradation does not amount to manufacture as the same did not involve production of a new chilling plant.2. Shri V.B. Gaikwad, ld. Advocate also draws our attention to the decision of CEGAT in Enfield In...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Crop Health Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT555TriDel

1. These are two reference applications filed by the Revenue to refer the following questions on the ground that point of law arises with reference to the Final Order passed by the Tribunal A/35 & 36/98-NB, dated 8-1-1998 1998 (101) E.L.T. 425 (Tribunal). (i) As per Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 endorsed GP Is are valid documents for Modvat provided that the documents in question have been issued before 1-4-1994 and credit has been taken on or before 30-6-1994 and in the instant case the GP Is were issued prior to 30-3-1994, but endorsement made on or after 1-4-1994 which should not be considered as valid documents in view of proviso mentioned under Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994. (ii) The Order Nos. 44-45/96-WRB, dated 24-1-1996 1996 (83) E.L.T. 620 (Tribunal) of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Moosa Hazi Patrawala Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai-I relied by the Hon'ble Tribunal was not accepted by the Department. The Department had pref...

Puspa Industrial Corpn. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC445

1. The captioned 3 Appeals along with respective Stay Petitions, were taken up together; heard together in as much as the issue involved in all the three Appeals was the same and are being disposed of by this common order.2. While determining the Annual Production Capacity of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mill, the ld. Commissioner passed a format order which does not give reasons for coming to the conclusion and is not a speaking order at all.3. S/Shri M.P. Devnath and Joseph Pookkatt, ld. Advocates appear for the above Appellants and submit that with effect from 1-9-1997, Government of India introduced a new scheme of charging duty on the basis of Annual Production Capacity of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills.For this purpose, amendments were affected in Central Excise Act, 1944 and new Section 3A was introduced. Section 3A provided for specification of the goods to which this method of levy was applied.This section also provides for the procedure for determining the Annual Production Capacity...

Khaja Vaseem Nizami Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(81)LC152Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-original No. ACU/DS/1/98 dated 7.1.1998 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo), New Customs House, New Delhi confiscating the Toyota Land Cruiser imported by the appellant under the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978 with option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 10 lakhs, determining the assessable value of the car at Rs. 12,15,527.50 and demanding duty on that basis and imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Appellant was working in UAE since about 1987. He returned to India for good in 1997. During the interregnum, he was working in UAE as a Teacher. He filed bill of entry dated 13.6.1997 declaring the assessable value of the car as Rs. 8,01,945.77 and sought clearance of the vehicle under the Transfer of Residence Rules. Appellant produced registration certificate showing that the car was purchased on 26.2.1996 from M/s. Kampala Used Cars of UAE for 73,000 Dirhams. The certificate did not dis...

Arti Steels Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT166TriDel

1. By show cause notice dated 5-12-1986 read with corrigendum dated 20-1-1993 the present Appellants were asked to show cause to the Collector as to why an amount of Rs: 38,79,137.90 taken by them as deemed Modvat credit should not be disallowed and penalty imposed. The matter was thereafter adjudicated by the Collector who by the impugned order-in-original, dated 21-4-1995 confirmed the demand for the said amount and imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,50,000/-. The appellants in the present appeal have prayed for the setting aside of the said order.2. Facts briefly are: The appellants at the relevant time were engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing the facility of Modvat credit in respect of duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products. During the period June, 1986 to August, 1986, the appellants took deemed credit on waste and s...

Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT213TriDel

1. Appellants are manufacturers of ABS polymers and SBR latex falling under Chapters 39 and 40 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Department alleged that they had wrongly availed of Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 19,68,292 during the period April, 1995 and May, 1995 on certain goods as Capital goods under Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur by impugned adjudication order dated 2nd February, 1996 allowed credit on some of the goods but denied it on certain others and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000. The total amount on which Modvat credit was disallowed was Rs. 17,37,149. Hence the present appeal.2. Shri P.M. Parekh, General Manager of the Appellants Company appeared for the appellants before us. For the Department Shri D.K. Nayyar, JDR argued the case.3. Representative of the appellants submitted that Modvat credit had been disallowed to them on six categories of items whose functions he explained as under :- T...

Ravi Steels Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT437TriDel

The appellants herein are an SSI unit. They are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. round bars and M.S. strips falling under sub-heading 7214.90 and 7211.52 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For that purpose they use scrap of old rail material, broken machinery parts and scrap purchased from open market as input in the manufacture of the aforesaid final products. They availed deemed Modvat credit on the above mentioned items during the period June, 1994 to September, 1994 amounting to Rs. 1,36,453.00. Revenue however, felt that deemed Modvat credit taken by them was not correct inasmuch as the scrap was not generated due to any manufacturing activity in a factory of production and as such was clearly recognisable as non-duty paid material. Hence, a show cause notice dated 20-12-1994 was issued proposing to reverse the aforesaid Modvat credit and if already utilised, to recover the same. On adjudication, the Assistant Collector, Faizabad confirmed the aforesaid amount against the appe...

Universal Dyening and Printing Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC197

1. These appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original dated 25.6.1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II. By this order the Collector confirmed the demand of Rs. 13,123.50 (already paid) and Rs. 20.77,992.57, imposed penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on M/s.Universal Dyeing and Printing Works (appellant in appeal E/1094/91-A and called job worker for short), confiscated 7877.10 L. metres of man-made fabrics valued at Rs. 1,04,744.34 under Rule 173Q of the Rule allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000.00. confiscated the job-worker's plant, land, machinery etc. allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh and imposed penalty on two partners and the Chief Executive of the job-worker. Since the man-made fabrics had already been released against B-II Bond for Rs. 1.04.744.34 with bank guarantee for Rs. 26,186.00, the Collector directed appropriation of the latter amount from the security in case the goods were not produced.2. The demand in this case relate...

Pennwalt (i) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1999Delhi23; [1999]97CompCas163(Delhi); 74(1998)DLT422; 1998(46)DRJ434

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1.The short but interesting question raised in these writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is whether a preliminary investigation, as envisaged in Section 11 or Section 36C of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short the Act) is a condition precedent to the issue of process requiring the owner of an undertaking or any other person to show cause as to why an order directing payment of compensation for the loss or damage caused as a result of Monopolistic or Restrictive or Unfair trade practice carried on by him be not made. 2. Since the question involved is common in all the three matters, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. To appreciate the controversy we shall treat the facts in Civil Writ No. 4121/95 as illustrative. 4. The petitioner company, engaged in the business of supply and erection of refinery plants etc., installed for respondent No. 2 the claimant, a 50 MT capacity edible oil refiner...

Munshi Lal Om Prakash Vs. Delhi Automobiles Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that the firm M/s. Munshi Lal Om Prakash, through its partner S. Singhal booked PAL Peugeot, manufactured by opposite party No. 2 through their authorised dealer, M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd. opposite party No. 1, on 5.10.1995 by depositing Rs. 25,000/-. The opposite party No. 1 issued receipt regarding payment of the amount as well as Priority Card. The dealer wrote to the complainant that the booking order was likely to mature shortly and accordingly the complainant deposited the balance amount of Rs. 4,23,012.22 by cheque on 24.6.1996. The car was not delivered. The complainant awaited for more than eight weeks which was indicated as the normal delivery period. The complainant wrote a number of letters asking for refund of the amount followed by a legal notice dated 23.10.1996 and another notice dated 3.3.1997 but they failed to elicit any reply and accordingly the complainant filed the present complaint on 25.4.1997 claiming R...