Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments

N.S. Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT509TriDel

1. The appellants herein purchase of duty paid Ultrawhite RNI and dilute the same by addition of water, and clear the following products from their factory: Show cause notice was issued proposing classification of the above three products under CET sub-heading 3204.90 attracting duty @ 35% BED + 5% SED. The Assistant Collector held that the Ultrawhite RNI even when diluted with water does not undergo any chemical change and it remains the same, and therefore no new product emerges. He held that the products cleared by the appellants are dilute Ultrawhite RNI of varying concentration classifiable under CET sub-heading 3204.30 which covers "Synthetic Organic Products of a kind used as fluorescent brightening agent or as luminophores". He held that no duty was payable on the three products above-mentioned and hence vacated the demand raised in the show cause notice. Revenue filed an appeal to the Collector (Appeals) who took the view that the respondents had manufactured new products and...

Addis Capsulation and Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT708TriDel

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai confirming the order of the Assistant Collector who has approved classification lists filed by the assessees for products such as "Ampicillin for oral suspension BP", "Chloramphenicol for oral suspension BP", etc. under CET sub-heading 3003.20 attracting nil rate of duty, denying modvat facility and directing the assessees to reverse the Modvat credit availed on such goods. The appellants claim that their goods bear a brand name and hence fall for classification under CET sub-heading 3003.10.2. None appears for the appellant inspite of notice of hearing; we, therefore, proceeded to hear the learned SDR and perused the records.3. The labels on the products whose classification is in dispute consist of a right angle triangle in a colour different from the rest of the lables. There is no distinguishing mark, symbol, etc., which can be said to establish a connection in the course of trade bet...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Aksh India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT156TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the respondents are M/s. Aksh India Ltd. and the matter relates to the eligibility of the water process generator classifiable under Heading No. 84.05 of the Central Excise Tariff to the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of jelly filled optical fibre cables classifiable under Heading No. 85.44 of the Tariff. The Modvat credit was denied by the Asstt. Commissioner on the ground that the functioning of the water process generator was not in the nature of producing/processing of any goods nor did it bring about any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final products. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, had observed that the Modvat credit was not to be denied with regard to this item.2. I have heard Shri T.A. Arunachalam, JDR, for the appellants/ Revenue and Shri Lachman Dev, Consultant, for the respondents.3. Shri T.A. Arunachalam, J...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mitshu Pharma

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT425TriDel

1. These are two appeals against same order - one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by the Assessee. Both the appeals are, therefore, being disposed of by one common order.2. M/s. Mitshu Pharma Pvt. Ltd. manufacture P or P Medicine and claimed exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986. They also claimed exemption under Notification No. 48/77, dated 1-4-1977 in respect of clinical samples. They also declared their product under sub-heading 3003.20 as medicaments other than patent or proprietary chargeable to nil rate of duty. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed them the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 48/77 on the ground that the words "Physician's samples, not to be sold" were not printed on the packing as required under the Notification and for computing the quantity of clearance for the purpose of sample, the value of the clearance made duty free under Notification No. 175/86 is not to be taken into consideration. The Assistant Commission...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Jai NaraIn Radhey Shyam and Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in cancelling the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,81,650 as the AO found bogus purchases which the assessee admitted to the extent of Rs. 3,46,000 during the course of assessment proceedings." 2. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT(A) has grossly erred in cancelling the penalty on the facts and circumstances of the present case. He submitted that the original return of income was filed on 31st October, 1989, declaring income of Rs. 2,23,640. The AO issued a notice under s. 143(2)/142(1) and a questionnaire fixing the date of hearing for 21st December, 1989. On that date, the case was adjourned to 10th January, 1990, on assessee's request. The AO examined the books of accounts of the assessee on 10th January, 1990. The assessee soon after such examination of books of accounts by the AO and as a result of certain queries raised during the course of such examin...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gearhert India Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Both the appeals are directed against the order dt. 21st May, 1992 of CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, for asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91.2. As both the appeals are by Revenue and have common Grounds and points of law, hence are taken together, heard and disposed of by a consolidated common order. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in : (i) directing the AO to allow investment allowance under s. 32A holding that the assessee is an industrial company. (ii) deleting the addition of Rs. 3,06,559 representing customs duty for the computers taken on hire despite the fact that the assessee was not owner and the hire charges were also high. (iii) directing the AO to allow the depreciation @ 100 per cent on down hole equipments despite the fact that the assessee-company is not a mineral oil concern." 4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/assessee-company is engaged in carrying out full range of open hole and cased hole logging, perfor...

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gearhert India Itd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1999)64TTJ(Del)63

ORDERRAM BAHADUR, J.MBoth the appeals are directed against the order dt. 21st May, 1992 of CIT(A)XVI, New Delhi, for asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91.2. As both the appeals are by Revenue and have common Grounds and points of law, hence are taken together, heard and disposed of by a consolidated common order.3. Ground of appeal by Revenue are reproduced below:' 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in:(i) directing the AO to allow investment allowance under s. 32A holding that the assessed is an industrial company.(ii) deleting the addition of Rs. 3,06,559 representing customs duty for the computers taken on hire despite the fact that the assessed was not owner and the hire charges were also high.(iii) directing the AO to allow the depreciation @ 100 per cent on down hole equipments despite the fact that the assessee-company is not a mineral oil concern. '4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/assesee company is engaged in carr...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jai NaraIn Radhey Shyam and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1999)65TTJ(Del)761

ORDERB.M. Kothari, AM: The Revenue has raised the following ground in this appeal:'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,81,650 as the assessing officer found bogus purchases which the assessed admitted to the extent of Rs. 3,46, 000 during the course of assessment proceedings.'2. The learned departmental Representative submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in cancelling the penalty on the facts and circumstances of the present case. He submitted that the original return of income was filed on 31-10-1989, declaring income of Rs. 2,23,640. The assessing officer issued a notice under section 143(2)1142(1) and a questionnaire fixing the date of hearing for 21-12-1989. On that date, the case was adjourned to 10-1-1990, on assessor's request. The assessing officer examined the books of accounts of the assessed on 10-1-1990. The assessed ...

Renu Bahati Vs. Smt. Darshana Jindal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Renu Bahati, complainant, entered into an agreement with opposite party for the purchase of 75 sq. yards in Khasra No. 43/11, situated in the Village Shahbad Daulatpur on 16.5.1990. The land was acquired by the State by notification u/Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 26.4.1996. The complainant was not given any compensation on the ground that in the Revenue Record the land continued to be entered in the name of Gaon Sabha and not in the name of the agreement seller Smt. Darshana Jindal. The complainant approached Public Grievance Commission but failed to get any redress. 2. A perusal of the complaint shows that it does not disclose any consumer dispute. The acquisition of the land by the State cannot be challenged before the FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. For payment of compensation detailed provisions exist in the Land Acquisition Act and the complainant may, if so advised, approach the Lan...

C.C.E. Vs. Dhoot Compack Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC556

1. Short question involved in this appeal is whether the benefit of third proviso to Rule 9 is available to the respondents herein for removal of goods which stipulates removal of goods without payment of duty for manufacture of another commodity in the factory. Third proviso envisages 3 conditions on the fulfilment of which the goods could be removed without payment of duty for manufacture of another commodity. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents herein that they are not entitled to the benefit of third proviso to Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules 1944. On adjudication the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise held that condition No. 1 & 2 were fulfilled but the condition No 3 of third proviso was not fulfilled and hence the benefit of the said proviso was denied to the respondents.2. On appeal, the respondents herein succeeded before the lower appellate authority which held that the third condition has also been fulfilled inasmuch as the final product was liable to a...