Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments

Photopone Industries India Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT875TriDel

1. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Photographic Camera and Projectors filed 6 price lists Nos. 38, 66, 67, 101,137 and 138, all in 1988-89 declaring the wholesale prices and claiming various deductions.The order of approval originally passed was set aside by Collector (Appeals) who remanded for fresh disposal. The Assistant Collector passed a fresh order which has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeal.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has objection to the direction given by the Assistant Collector in regard to deduction of equalised freight and insurance charges and also the cost of certain accessories.3. The six price lists covered a large number of items of photographic camera and projectors. The appellant who claimed deduction of specific amounts as equalised freight and insurance charges, when called upon to produce the basis of quantification, produced certificate of Chartered Accountant which showed the corre...

Logitronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT643TriDel

1. This appeal is filed by M/s. Logitronics Pvt. Ltd. The matter relates to the refund claim filed in respect of the goods imported - computer monitors - claiming the benefit of the Customs Exemption Notification No. 93/95-Cus., dated 18-5-1995 in respect of goods already cleared out of customs charge. The Asstt. Commissioner, Customs had rejected the refund claim on various grounds; he had observed that the conditions of Notification No. 93/95-Cus. had not been fulfilled, the monitors imported were completely finished items and were not for use in the manufacture of any other product and no undertaking as provided in that notification was submitted at the point of import. On appeal the Commissioner, Customs (Appeals) confermed the view taken by the Asstt. Commissioner, Customs. She also referred to the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Kooverji Devshi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.Collector of Customs, Bombay -1990 (47) E.L.T. 266 Tribunal, and observed that the monitors were imported fo...

Photopone Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT523TriDel

1. The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 08/92, dated 12-12-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Bombay confirming the Order in Original No. 31/91, dated 30-7-1991 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Goa, approving Price List No. 165/90-91 filed by the appellant and given certain deductions in the determination of assessable value.2. The excisable product manufactured by the appellant is Photo Camera.The dispute in the appeal relates to admissibility to deduction of the cost of Instruction Manual, Freight and Insurance charges.3. Instruction Manual cannot be regarded as a component part of photo camera. So also leather case is not a component part of camera. Even assuming that manual and case are sold with every unit of camera, they cannot be regarded as component parts. Supreme Court in case of Shriram Bearings Ltd. -1997 (91) E.L.T. 255 (S.C.) has held that the cost of accessories even fitted to an excisable product at the time of clearance cannot b...

Dr. B.L. Wadehra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1998Delhi651

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The petitioner, an Advocate, has filed this petition in public interest questioning, the transfer of mining lease of Deposit No. 11-B, Iron-Ore Mine by the National Mineral Development Corporation (for short 'NMDC') in favor of private sector. The NMDC a wholly owned Government of India undertaking has agreed to transfer lease of mine in question to a joint sector company, namely, Bailadila Mineral Development Company Ltd. (Respondent No. 7). An industrial House by the name of 'Mittals' has 89% shareholding in the said joint venture company ('JVC' for short).Brief Facts:2. The lease of 1809 hectares of land in Baledilia Reserve Forest Area, Bastar District, Madhya Pradesh, was granted in favor of NMDC for a period of 30 years with effect from 12th June, 1967 by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Deposit 11-B is part of this land lies in the middle of the area leased out to NMDC. It has would's best quality iron-ore with ferrous content of above 65% which is particularly ...

M.T.N.L. Vs. Preet Dhankar

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 the telephone in question was installed at the residence of Smt. Preet Dhankar, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, in January, 1986. Since the date of installation till the disputed bill dated 1.7.1991, the bill hardly ever exceeded the number of free calls allowed by the department. Suddenly on 1.7.1991, the complainant was served with a bill for Rs. 20,056.50 for the period 16.4.1991 to 15.6.1991. The bill included 16 ISD calls made to USA, UK, Switzerland between 0025 hours to 0623 hours on a single day namely 19.5.1991. The complainant immediately brought the aforesaid facts to the notice of the department and she was allowed to pay a split bill of Rs. 358/-. The balance amount was not claimed for a long period. Ultimately, after nearly three years notice dated 25.7.1994 was served on the complainant requiring her to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 19,699/-. The opposite party regretted ...

Emient Cargo (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT653TriDel

1. This is an application filed by the applicant for stay of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, dated 28-2-1998 under which the Commissioner of Customs suspended the licence of the applicant.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate arguing the stay petition submits that the written examination under Regulation 9 of the Customs Agents Licensing Regulation has been fixed for 21-8-1998. He submits that an appeal against the order of the Commissioner has been filed; that in case the permission for appearing in the written examination is not accorded, the appellant will suffer the consequence of not getting permanent licence irrespective of the order that may be passed in appeal. He, therefore, prays that the appellant may be permitted to take written examination fixed for 21-8-1998 as a special case.3. Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR submits that appearing in the written examination etc. is not part of the adjudication order. He submits that adjudication order is only on suspension of licence.4....

Collector of Customs Vs. P.M. Lodha

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC312Tri(Delhi)

1. Heard Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, on behalf of the appellants and Shri S.C. Sharma, Executive Officer, on behalf of the respondents. We find that the Eastern Bench of the Tribunal at Calcutta in the case of respondents allowed the benefit of Notification No. 59/88-Cus. and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The present appeal is also filed on the same grounds which were considered by the Eastern Bench of the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. A/182-183/Cal.-98, elated 5-2-1998 1998 (104) E.L.T. 746 (T) in the case of CC, Calcutta v. P.M. Lodha and the Tribunal 4. Shri A.K. Kar, Commercial Executive for the respondent firm, in the first instance prays for adjournment on the around that the concerned staff dealing with the matter was not available, We, however, decline to consider his prayer for adjournment, since the issue is in a short compass and could be disposed of by hearing the Revenue's learned representative. We have considered the pleas advanced by the learned SDR, Shri T. P...

Punjab Power Generation Machines Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1155TriDel

1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. There is no request for adjournment. Appellant was also absent yesterday and we adjourned the appeal for today. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant filed price list No. 432/92-93 in respect of hot blast body valves in Part II for supply of these goods at Rs. 1,56,687.00 per unit and Rs. 2,82,787.00 per unit to M/s. Cimmco Ltd., New Delhi as per purchase order dated 5-9-1992. On approval of the price list, goods were cleared on payment of appropriate duty. Appellant received an advance of Rs. 1,15,960.00. Show cause notice dated 25-6-1993 was issued stating that interest at 18% per annum on the amount of advance from the date of receipt of advance till the date of clearance should be added to the assessable value and proposing demand of differential duty of Rs. 1746.00 based on the redetermined assessable value. Though the appellant resisted the notice, the Assistant Collector confirmed the dema...

Escorts Tractors Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(81)LC315Tri(Delhi)

1. Shri Dinesh Charak, Manager-Law, appeared on behalf of the appellants and prays for adjournment. We find that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, the request for adjournment is declined.2. The appellants have filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. In this case, the dispute is regarding the classification of Water Pump Bearings imported by the appellants. The appellants claimed the classification of the Water Pump Bearings under sub-heading 8483.30 of the Customs Tariff as plain shaft bearings and the Revenue assessed the Water Pump Bearings under sub-heading No. 8482.10 of the Customs Tariff, 1985.4. We find that the issue regarding the classification of the Water Pump Bearing is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of International Auto Suppliers v. CC, Bombay, . The goods under import i.e. Water Pump Bearings or Integral shaft ball bearings are not plain sh...

Collector of Customs Vs. Hindustan Prakasan Trust

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC313Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the goods imported -Photopolymer Plate Making System (Plate Maker) used for preparing printing plates by photographic principles. The goods were classified under Heading No. 90.10 of the Customs Tariff at the point of import vide Bill of Entry dated 26-3-1987. The importers paid the appropriate Customs duty and got the goods cleared out of Customs charge. Subsequently, on 29-4-1987 they applied for refund on the ground that the goods should have been classified either under Heading No. 84.42 or under Heading No. 8443.60 of the Customs Tariff. The refund claim was rejected by the Asstt.Collector of Customs after observing the principles of natural justice.On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) held that the goods in question were classifiable under Heading No. 84.42 of the Customs Tariff.2. The matter was fixed for hearing on 19-8-1998. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the responde...