Delhi Court July 1998 Judgments

Star Paper Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT204TriDel

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut confirming a duty demand of Rs. 11,34,104.39 p. on printing and writing paper manufactured and cleared by the appellants during the period from 18-10-1987 to 12-3-1988 on the ground that such paper fell for classification under CET sub-heading 4802.99 and not under sub-heading 4802.10 which covers printing and writing paper containing not less than 75% by weight of pulp from bagasse and attracting nil rate of duty during the relevant period. The duty has been confirmed on a quantity of 389.425 MTs of paper for which bagasse pulp content has been determined as being below 75%. The contention of the appellants that the ash content is to be deducted to determine the bagasse pulp content percentage and if such deduction is made, the percentage of bagasse pulp content will be 75% or more, has been rejected by the Adjudicating authority for the reason that ash content in paper remains throughout the stage...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Simplex Mills Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT435TriDel

1. The respondents herein are engaged in the making of printing paste.The Department was of the view that the printing paste made by the respondents was a manufactured commodity classifiable under sub-heading 3204.29 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, by application of Note 6 to Chapter 32, according to which conversion of unformulated, unstandardised or unprepared dyes into formulated, standardised or prepared form ready for use in the process of dyeing by reduction of any particle size, addition of dispersing agents or diluents, alone shall amount to manufacture. The respondents had contended that they had purchased duty paid standardised, formulated dyes and prepared it by mixing various ingredients together to form a readily useable paste.The lower appellate authority has applied Note 6 to Chapter 32 and has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, allowing the appeal "subject to the condition that what was received by the Textile Mills was in fact formulated, standardised ...

Sun Shine Steel Industries Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Shorn off all unnecessary details, M/s. Sun Shine Steel Industries was originally a partnership concern with Rajpal Sekhri, Smt. Kamla Madhok and Indra Mohan Chopra as partners. Under the resettlement scheme, where industries were shifted from non-conforming area to conforming area, the said partnership was allotted Plot No. 23/2, Block A, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-1 New Delhi through the DDA on 30.6.1969. The firm deposited Rs. 7,100/- on 5.8.1969 and possession was delivered on 30th September, 1990. The area of the plot was found to be 500 sq. yards against the area of the plot allotted which was 400 sq. yards. Additional premium was also deposited. The firm was dissolved by a Deed of Dissolution dated 17.7.1972. On 8.7.1981, Mr. Inder Mohan Chopra informed DDA that the firm had been dissolved by Dissolution Deed dated 17.7.1972, Rajpal Sekhri and Smt. Kamla Madhok retired from the partnership and he (Indra Mohan Chopra) became the sole proprietor of...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Iek Plastics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT205TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal is eligibility to exemption under Notification No. 154/86 for the product called "Zero-B" manufactured by the respondents. The notification exempts water filters of a capacity not exceeding 40 litres. The impugned order held that the product is water filter and is eligible for exemption. The appeal of the Revenue contends that the item is a water purifier and, therefore, is not eligible for exemption. Learned SDR submits that exemption is wholly in respect of filters and not in respect of purifiers. He also submits that for the purpose of exemption the criterion for classification is not taken into account.2. Arguing for the respondents, Shri Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Advocate, submits that the impugned order contains clear finding about the item in question. It was held that the product "Zero-B" appliance is a water filter. In the process of filteration it removes the bacteria from drinking water. The filter, since it removes the bacteria, is also so...

Prabhu Dayal Lallu Ram Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 17th January, 1991, for asst. yr. 1988-89.2. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 relate to confirmation of an addition of Rs. 2,250 in Gram account and addition of Rs. 750 in Barley account. This addition was made by the AO on account of shortage claimed by the assessee in the aforesaid two trading accounts. The CIT(A) confirmed the same.2.1. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee furnished complete quantitative details of Gram account and Barley account before the AO. The details so furnished by the assessee were verifiable from regular books of accounts and other relevant records maintained by the assessee. In view of the smallness of amount of genuine shortage claimed by the assessee, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted the same.2.2. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the CIT(A) and also relied upon the reasons mentioned in the assessment order.2.3. We have consid...

Lml Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT159TriDel

1. This stay application is filed by LML Limited for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of about Rs. 30 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs imposed on them in the Adjudication Order No. 5/98, dated 31-3-1998 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur-I.2. The duty demands have been raised on account of the following grounds:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. No. Grounds Duty Confirmed (Rs.)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------9. Cost of form Rs. 1,42,387.47 -------------------------------------------- 3. The applicant has submitted that the demands made on the aforesaid grounds are not justified at all as addition to the price or inclusion in the assessable value of any of the aforesaid costs is not legally tenable. They have submitted that demand of over Rs. 6.31 lacs on excess recovery of insurance charges is wholly unjustified as the short recovery on transportation charge is to be adjusted again...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Madhya Bharat Papers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT206TriDel

1. The issue for determination in this appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Raipur is the eligibility to Modvat credit on dandy covers, dryer felt, press felt, industrial cloth and synthetic cloth used on paper machine by the respondents herein who are engaged in the manufacture of paper falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. Today's date was noted by the respondent's Advocate; however, none appears on their behalf when the case is called nor is there any request for adjournment. Hence, we heard the learned DR and perused the records and pass the following order.2. We find that the Department contends that all the items mentioned above are in the nature of parts of paper machine and are, therefore, excluded from the coverage of inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the case of Straw Products Ltd. v. CCES and Customs reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 572, the Tribunal while considering the elig...

Raj Ratan Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT709TriDel

1. The issue falls for consideration in these cases is the determination of capacity of furnace for the purpose of levy and collection of duty.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants submitted that in similar matters involving the same issue, the matter has already been remanded to determine the annual capacity after providing an opportunity and in this context, he referred to Order No.A/291-294/98-NB dated 26-5-1998. He submits that following the said order, subsequently the Tribunal has remanded some more matters.3. Today, stay applications are posted for hearing. On going through the issue involved in these cases, we find that main matters can be disposed of. Accordingly, the cases were taken up for hearing. The amount required to be deposited in all these cases is dispensed with for the purpose of hearing the appeals.4. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of ingots. With the amendment of Section 3A w.e.f. 1st September, 1997, the determinatio...

Synthetics and Polymer Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT659TriDel

1. Classification of certain phenol formaldehyde resins manufactured by the appellants herein - according to the assessees, the product would fall for classification under CET 3909.51 and the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 133/86 would be applicable, while according to the Department the product is a chemically modified phenol formaldehyde resin classifiable under CET sub-heading 3909.59 attracting duty at the tariff rate; 2. We have heard Shri K.K. Anand, learned Counsel and Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR and record our findings herein below :- 2.1 Classification : The Chemical Examiner's report on the samples drawn for test on 14-10-1990 confirms that the product in dispute is a chemically modified phenol formaldehyde resin. The Chief Technical Executive of the appellant company has also deposed in cross-examination that the chemical modification was brought about by use of alcohol, ethyl alcohol and resins. The appellants cannot, therefore, contend t...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. M.K.R. Frozen Food Export

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC532

1. The two respondents herein are manufacturer of meat and meat products. For preservation of meat they use dry ice i.e. solidified CO2 gas. There is also a Notification No. 7/65-C.E., dated 30th January 1965 which states, that if dry ice is used for industrial purposes it is exempted from duty under the erstwhile Tariff Item 14H. The department observed that dry ice so obtained was used for preservation of meat during transportation from Delhi to Bombay and abroad. It was therefore alleged by the Revenue that the respondents would not be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 7/65-CE. Consequently, they were asked to show cause as to why a duty of Rs. 3,17,424.15 and Rs. 11,943.75 for the relevant periods be not recovered from them. The aforesaid demands were proposed in show cause notices both dated 24-9-1982.On adjudication, the aforesaid amounts of duty were dropped by the Addl. Collector.CBEC in exercise of its powers under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has rai...