Delhi Court July 1998 Judgments

Suraj Foundry Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT559TriDel

1. This appeal was admitted and was taken for final hearing. Ms. Reena Khair, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants. Revenue represented by Shri A.M. Tilak, JDR.2. The issue has been paraphrased by the Commissioner in his order as follows : "I have carefully gone through the case papers and the submissions made by the appellants in their Memorandum of Appeal and personal hearing. I find that the disputed invoice has been issued by M/s. Krishna Enterprises, Bhilai under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. However, even if it is considered an invoice issued under Rule 57GG, even then the serial no. is required to be printed in accordance with provisions of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 57GG. Sub-rule (5) was inserted vide Notification No. 2/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 19-1-1995 and therefore, invoice issued on 6-5-1995 is expected to confirm to the provisions of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 57GG. Therefore, I do not agree with the contention of the appellant that pre-printing of invoice is required t...

international Conveyors Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1109TriDel

"Their contention is not correct inasmuch as double/multifold yarn is considered as distinctly different commodity that is why the specific exemption was given in the respective notifications which clearly shows that the double/multifold yarn is excisable, dutiable product irrespective of the fact whether the same falls under the heading in which bare yarn (single yarn) is falling or otherwise. The exemption Notification No. 318/86 clearly specifies the double/multifold yarn for exemption if manufactured from duty paid yarn. Thus, when doubling/multifolding is considered as manufacture in a notification issued under a Statute, the double/multifold yarn is distinctly different, commercially known commodity and in the market such yarns are known as fancy yarn." The ld. Collector, therefore, confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 4,37,447.62 and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Being aggrieved by this order, the assessee has filed the captioned appeal before us.2. The facts leadi...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Asmaco Plastipipe Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT380TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the PVC braided hose pipes are eligible for exemption under Sl. No.26(i) as claimed by the department or Sl. No. 26(ii) of Notification No. 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 as claimed by the assessee.2. Shri H.K. Jain, Learned SDR submitted that the respondents manufactured PVC braided hoses falling under Heading 39.17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They claimed exemption under Sl. No. 26 (ii) of the Notification No. 53/88 claiming their product to be reinforced PVC hoses. However, the Assistant Commissioner disallowed the benefit of exemption Notification holding that the product is Multilayer Plastic Laminated Tubes attracting partial exemption under Sl. No. 26(ii) of the Notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original observing that there is a marked difference between tubes and hoses, as the hoses invariably have a reinforcement, usually textile; that even commercially, hoses are...

M/S. Dooars Transport and anr. Vs. M/S. Medochem Laboratory Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case leading to this appeal are that Medochem Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., complainant for short, booked two consignments on 28.9.1989 and 10.11.1989 with Dooars Transport Company, opposite party No. 1, from Delhi to Gaya. Requisite freight charges were paid. The total value of the consigned goods was Rs. 25,779.37. The goods failed to reach the destination. The complainant wrote three letters one after the other dated 15.3.1990,19.6.1990 and 12.7.1990 in order to find-out the fate of the goods, but failed to elicit any reply. The complainant, therefore, claimed price of the goods together with the interest and compensation. One Mr. Prem Shankar Khandelwal, Advocate entered appearance on behalf of the both the opposite parties i.e. respondent-Company, opposite party 1 and Mr. A.K. Mittal Proprietor thereof opposite party 2. The Advocate filed his Power of Attorney and took time to file written version of the opposite party. On the adjourned date...

Mineral Exploration Co. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(105)ELT683TriDel

2. In the first round before the Tribunal, it had passed Order No.381/87-B2, dated 18-3-1987. Question in this appeal reveals the interpretation of this order passed by the Tribunal.3. In order to appreciate the controversy we reproduce paras 3,4 & 5 of the Tribunal's said order which includes the pleas made by the learned Advocate Shri V.A. Bobed for the appellants before the Tribunal. "3. Shri V.A. Bobde, Sr. Advocate, submitted that he was not pressing the classification under Item 90.14. He urged that the assessment by the lower authorities of the parts was incorrect. The authorities have relied on Note 2 of Chapter 90 but in view of Note 5 of Chapter 90 as Tool Gamma, Density Caliper and Neutron source, are basic instruments for measuring and detecting artificial and natural gamma rays and Neutron rays and therefore classifiable under 90.28 (3). He also drew our attention to the letter of clearance dated 22-10-1984 obtained from Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay. Similarl...

T.C. Healthcare (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT267TriDel

1. The common-appellant in these appeals having filed the appeals against the common original Order No. 33 to 39/COMM/MRT-1/97, dated 27-11-1997 confirming demand of duty of Rs. 4,57,51,508.17 Under Section 11A on the basis of seven show cause notices for different periods, imposing penalty of an equal amount under Rule 173Q of the Rules and confiscating plant and machinery with option to redeem on fine of Rs. 50 lakhs, appellant has filed these applications seeking waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount of duty and penalty Under Section 35F of the Act. We have heard both sides.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of cosmetic goods was paying appropriate duty on the clearances. Certain facts which had not been disclosed earlier were discovered during investigation and in the light of these facts, seven show cause notices in respect of clearances made during the overall period from August, 1995 to June, 1997 were issued proposing demand of differential duty and impo...

Panchsheel Enterprises Vs. Collector of C Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT494TriDel

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Printed Circuit Board (PCB) of various types and sizes. To distinguish the PCB makes further product they marked them as 'Beltek' 024/14-P, Telly, PC-041 etc. They have been denied small scale exemption under the impugned order on the ground that the PCB in question bear the brand name of another person.2. Arguing the case Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate submits that these markings are main PCB only for the purpose of identification of the product. He also submits that this is not a brand name at all. He relied on the decision of the CEGAT in the case of Tracko International v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in 1998 (25) RLT 691 in support of his contention. He also drew our attention to the clarification of Ministry of Finance in Circular No. 52/52/94-CH., dated 1-9-1994. The CEGAT decision has held that when the buyers' name is mentioned for the purpose of identification of the product, benefit of notification for sma...

Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT223TriDel

1. The dispute in this case relates to the admissibility of the following items for Modvat credit on capital goods :- I have heard Shri Sanjay Khatri, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.M. Tilak, ld. D.R. for the Revenue.2. Credit on blow bars has been denied in the original order on the observation that these are used in the mines for crushing limestone, that Rule 57Q permits benefit to be taken where the capital goods are used in the factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) up-held this contention relying upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Madras Cement Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 395.In this judgment, the Tribunal had held that the manufacture of cement could be taken to start only at the stage where the raw-materials are brought into factory. It was, therefore, held that the processes of mining could not be taken to be the process of manufacture of cement.Ld. Advocate relies upon the Tribunal's judgment in the case of A.C.C.Ltd...

Collector of Customs Vs. Banco Products (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT542TriDel

2. Dispute for the present matter is regarding classification of one set system P.D. Fanuc Tape Cut L Machine imported along with Fanuc Tape Cut Wire Cut Electric Discharge Machine.3. Original Authority has held the same to the micro-computer and not simply a transcribing machine of coded data from one medium to another.However, lower appellate authority has considered it to be a transcribing machine for transferring coded information from one type of data medium to a different type. The said lower appellate authority has held that the system in dispute receives inputs through Magnetic tape and transcribes data on to NC Tape which are then used in the Fanuc Tape Cut Machines. The said authority however holds that the system operate via automatic programming language known as FAPT. It is a complete system in itself and not depending on the main machine for its output.4. On the other hand the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Asst.Collector in the Order-in-Original as follows :- "C...

Comet Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT422TriDel

1. Hearing on the stay application was converted into the hearing of the main appeal with the consent of both sides.2. The assessees claimed as inputs - (1) aluminium oxide grains; and (2) Cerwool pads under Rule 57A.3. The Additional Commissioner held that aluminium oxide grains were admissible inputs following the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Singh Alloys & Steel Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 594 (Cal.). He held the pads as accessories of the furnace and permitted their availment under Rule 57Q. The Commissioner (Appeals), dealing with the review application filed by the department, found that whereas the cited case referred to chemicals, the ratio could not apply to aluminium grains. Relying on his predecessor's finding, he denied the claim of the assessees. He found the cerwool pads were not parts. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed, which was taken up for final hearing after granting unconditional ...