Delhi Court July 1998 Judgments

Sikhar Marbles (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT195TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Sikhar Marbles (P) Ltd., being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original dated 3-1-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur.2. The matter relates to the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,45,075/- in respect of the marble tiles alleged to have been removed without payment of Central Excise duty. A penalty of Rs. 20,000/- had also been imposed on the appellants by the adjudicating authority. The case was based on the private register maintained by the Sorter, Thomas George, which had been resumed by the Central Excise Officers when they visited the appellants' factory on 17-11-1991 for production based control checks. The matter had come up earlier before the Tribunal and the Tribunal under their Final Order Nos. A/165 & 166/93-NB, dated 15-3-1993 had remanded the matter on the ground that the various contentions of the appellants had not been discussed by the adjudicating authority. On de novo adjudication, the Collector of Central E...

Collector of Customs Vs. Cbr Medical Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT246TriDel

1. Matter called. None for the respondents. Therefore we have heard the learned JCDR Shri Lakhinder Singh for the revenue in support of its appeal. Briefly stated facts of the case are as follows :- The respondents claim the benefit of Notification No. 66/88-Cus. for the aforesaid goods. The original authority, namely Assistant Collector of Customs, however, did not allow the benefit of Notification 66/88-Cus. on the grounds that these are not component parts of a medical equipments falling under the list given in Notification No.65/88-Cus. but it is a medical equipment in CKD condition. Therefore the goods are entitled to the benefit of Notification 65/88 and not to the benefit of 66/88.2. On appeal the respondents herein succeeded. The impugned order, passed by the lower appellate authority, has held that the goods imported are component parts and not a complete medical equipment.Therefore, the benefit of Notification 66/88-Cus. was allowed by the lower appellate authority. Hence th...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Inalsa Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT551TriDel

1. The Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi has filed this appeal against order-in-appeal No. 382/CE/DLH/94, dated 20-6-1994 passed by Collector (Appeals) reversing the Order-in-Original No. 146/93-CE, dated 31-12-1993 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and dropping the demand.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of Food Processors and other excisable goods was clearing food processors on payment of duty on the approved value. It appears that the price lists filed by the respondent did not mention sale of relay and rotary switches as spare parts or replacement of spare parts, supplied either free of cost or for consideration to wholesale dealers. These spare parts were not even mentioned in Column 6 of the classification list. Scrutiny of the RT-12s from April to July, 1993 and relevant invoices showed that value of such spare parts which were essential parts of food processors were not added in the value of the goods cleared, though, wherever price was charged, ...

Youngman Hosiery Factory Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT114TriDel

In the course of visit of Central Excise Preventive staff to the appellants factory on 7-3-1989, they found excess stock of fully finished fabric over and above the recorded balance in R.G. I. The excess quantity of grey man-made knitted pile fabric was found to be measuring 6126.40 square metres. A statement was also recorded. On the basis of the aforesaid detection of the case and further investigations a show cause notice was issued.In reply to the show cause notice the appellants herein submitted that the processes of polishing and shearing the fabric undertaken by the appellants on grey fabrics do not amount to manufacture of any new commodity. Grey fabric remains grey fabric despite those processes. In support of the said submission the appellants also relied on Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. 1989 (40) E.L.T. 218 (S.C.). In effect therefore the appellants claimed the benefit of Notification 297/79. The Additional Collector however, a...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Western India Spg. and Mfg. Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC504

The respondents herein are manufacturers of cotton yarn as also of cotton fabrics. They had been availing of the procedure of Rule 49A for discharging the liability of duty on cotton yarn along with the liability on cotton fabrics when the latter is removed from the factory. In terms of the said Rule they are also paying the interest on duty leviable on cotton yarn at the rates prescribed in the said Rule. In the Budget of 1988 rates of duty on cotton yarn were reduced w.ei. 1-3-1988 on 29-2-1988 certain amount of cotton yarn was removed from the spinning section to the weaving section for weaving of fabric. Revenue raised a contention by issue of show cause notice that the yarn so removed from spinning section to weaving section on 29-2-1988 would have to bear the higher rate of duty as applicable on 29-2-1988 instead of the lower rate of duty which was prevalent on the date of removal of the fabric which took place after 29-2-1988. The respondents herein contested the said contentio...

Kilpest India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT786TriDel

1. The present applications have been filed for waiver of pro-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 49,38,141.80 and penalty amounting to Rs. 28 lakhs imposed on the applicants by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore.2. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate submitted that the issue involved is whether the formulation of pesticides by mixing the same with inert material and surface active dispersing and stabilising agents amounts to manufacture so as to bring a new and distinct product into existence. He submitted that Madhya Pradesh High Court in order dated 4-1-1996 in LPA No. 211/95 directed that the authorities shall not take into consideration the Board Circular No. 40/2/95, dated 27-7-1995 issued under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act while exercising quasi-judicial functions. The Learned Advocate further submitted that in spite of this order of the High Court, the Commissioner while adjudicating the matter has relied upon the opinion of the Chief Chemist...

Nylon Laminated Belts (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT165TriDel

1. Matter called. None for the appellants despite the notice of hearing. However, they have requested for deciding the appeal on merits on the basis of available records. Hence, we have heard the Id. SDR Shri A.K. Agarwal in support of the impugned order passed by the C.C.E., Chandigarh.2. By the impugned order, the concerned Collector has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 8,058.21 for the period April 1979 to 31st July, 1980 on the ground that the product mother rolls used in the manufacture of T.T. type belting is liable to excise duty. The adjudicating authority has held that mother rolls fall under T.I. 68 and not under the erstwhile Tariff Item 22(3) and accordingly the demand of duty has been confirmed.3. We observe now that the appellants have claimed the benefit of small-scale exemption notifications applicable to TI 68 as also Notification No. 115/75 but we notice that such a claim does not appear to have been made by the appellants at the time of adjudication of the matter...

Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT213TriDel

1. Matter called. None for the appellants. They have, however, requested for deciding the case on merits or the basis of available records.2. Question involved in the present matter is regarding tariff classification of Leno Fabrics manufactured by the appellants during 1987 and 1988. The appellants claimed the classification of the said fabric under Tariff Item 52.05 which reads as follows:_____________________________________________________Heading Sub- Description Rate of duty heading of Goods Basic Additional_____________________________________________________52.05 5205.00 Cotton fabrics, - Nil Nil (a) woven, and The Revenue on the other hand has classified the aforesaid fabric under Tariff Heading 59.09 which reads as follows :-_____________________________________________________Heading Sub- Description Rate of duty heading of Goods Basic Additional_____________________________________________________59.09 5909.00 All other 12% textile products and 3. In order to deal with the ...

U.P. State Horticultural Produce Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT210TriDel

1. Matter called. None for the appellants despite the notice of hearing having been sent by Registered Post. We observe that no Order-in-Original has been appended by the appellants alongwith the appeal.2. From the impugned order, we observe that the facts are somewhat as follows :- The appellants herein filed two classification lists 1/87 effective from 12-10-1987 classifying potato in brine under sub-heading 0702.00 and classification list No. 5/86 effective from 20th November, 1986 classifying guava halves under sub-heading 0801.10 and green peas in brine under sub-heading 0702.00. It further appears that two show cause notices dated 3/4-2-1988 were issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Fatehgarh proposing to classify potato in brine under sub-heading 0701.10 and green peas and gauva halves under sub-heading 2001.10. According to the appellants those show cause notices are still pending as mentioned in the impugned order. Despite the pendency of the aforesaid two sho...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sheela Construction (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that M/s. Sheela Construction Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 1 got its vehicle DCM Toyota bearing registration No. DL-1L-A-0791 insured with the appellant Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.3,41,000/- for the period 26.2.1993 to 25.2.1994. The vehicle met with an accident on 20th August, 1993. The respondent, who was complainant before the District Forum lodged a claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed M/s. J.R. Malhotra and Co., Surveyor. The Surveyor recommended that the claim be settled on total loss basis on payment of Rs. 1,98,500/-. The Insurance Company communicated its approval to the payment of the above amount towards settlementand requested the insured to complete the required formalities. The insured refused to accept the amount for the reasons stated in its letter dated 31.3.1994 and insisted for payment of Rs. 3,37,491/- stated to be the market value of the vehicle a...