Delhi Court October 1999 Judgments

C.C.E. Vs. Bhiwani Textile Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC558

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), dated 17.8.98, Respondents, M/s. Bhiwani Textile Mills, Bhiwani area engaged in the manufacture of dyed man-made staple fibres. They cleared dyed polyester fibre which was on job work basis on behalf of M/s Modern Syntex (I) Ltd. They did not include the Central Excise duty paid on the same material in the assessable value of dyed polyester fibre.Accordingly, four demands involving duty of Rs. 34,731, Rs. 30,777, Rs. 36,606 and Rs. 18,937 were made. This demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. A penalty of Rs. 4,000 under Rule 173Q was also imposed. This order of the adjudicating authority was taken in appeal by the respondent herein. Relying on the decision of this Tribunal in Dai Ichi Karkaria v. CCE, Pune 1996 (81) ELT 676, that decision was reversed and the order passed by the adjudicating authority was set aside. Aggrieved by this, this appeal has been filed.2. Decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s....

Collector of Central Excise Vs. K.S.B. Pumps

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC475Tri(Delhi)

1. These are eleven appeals preferred by Revenue arising out a common order passed by Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad involving the issue whether (i) Green sand., (ii) Core sand Resin Bonded core and (iii) Sodium Silicate Bonded coats are excisable goods leviable to duty under Central Excise Act.2. Briefly stated the facts are that all the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of "Prepared Sand", which is also known as green sand, core sand, sodium silicate bonded coats, depending on the category to which they belong. The prepared sand is used to manufacture sand moulds and cores which are subsequently used in the manufacture of castings.Show cause notices were issued to the Respondents for demanding duty on the grounds that the impugned products are classifiable under Heading 68.07 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that benefit of Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986 is not available as sand moulds are exempted from payment of duty and that the facts w...

Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT1000TriDel

1. The dispute relates to grant of rebate of Central Excise Duty. The appellants had exported pipes and tubes after paying Central Excise Duty. The duty so paid was ordered as rebate to them by the Assistant Commissioner. Not satisfied with this order an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal contending that rebate should be worked out as the Central Excise Duty payable on the FOB value of the export goods. The Commissioner (Appeal) allowed that appeal of the Department holding that according to clarification issued by the CBEC dated 10-4-1986 claim of rebate could based on FOB value.3. The appellants have submitted that their claim was for return of the duty paid by them on the exported goods as rebate. They also have submitted that their claim was in confirmity with the instructions of the Ministry of Finance vide Circular No. 203/37/96-C.E., dated 26-4-1996. And that the appellate order is erroneous in as it is contrary to the specific provisions of Rule 12 of t...

Mansurpur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT1038TriDel

1. The appellants herein who are manufacturers of sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 17 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has held that Air Dryer and Sugar Grass Hopper used in the sugar plant to facilitate drying of sugar are not capital goods entitled to credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. On hearing both the sides, I find that admittedly both the items are used in the Sugar plant, they are used for drying the wet sugar.Therefore, applying the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Jawahar Mills reported in [1999 (108) E.L.T. 47] wherein it has been held that credit is not required to be confined to goods which are directly used for producing or processing of any goods but credit on capital goods is to be extended also to those items which have been indirectly used to produce or process goods, I hold that both these items by their very nature and function fall wit...

Amrit Solar (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT757TriDel

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Amrit Solar Pvt.Ltd. is whether the Filter Screen for Hydrosol imported by them is classifiable under sub-heading No. 3926.90 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order or under sub-heading No.8421.99 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Appellants and whether benefit of Notification No.15/94-C.E. is admissible.2. Shri G. Shiv Das, ld. Advocate submitted that Filter Screen, though made of Plastic, is meant to be exclusively used in the Filter Equipment; namely, Hydrosol; that it is cut to size and is fitted on the filter equipment; that General Notes to Section XVI in paras A & B in H.S.N. specifically provides that subject to certain exclusions provided for in the Notes to Section XVI and Chapters 84 and 85, the Section would cover all mechanical or electrical machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus and appliances and parts thereof: that Notes further provide that the goods...

Wires and Fabrics (Sa) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT980TriDel

1. Whether the following items would fall under the category of capital goods in terms of definition and explanation given in Rule 57Q is an issue to be considered in appeal :- 2. It was brought to my notice that issue involved in this case with regard to above items has already been considered and concluded by the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Coimbatore, reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 (Tribunal).3. Shri D.K. Nayyar appearing for the Revenue reiterated the stand taken by the department.4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that the Commissioner has denied the Modvat credit on the ground that the items as such were not directly used in the process of manufacture of the finished products. This position has already been examined by the Tribunal in the Jawahar Mills Ltd., referred to above. Since the issue has already been concluded by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case, following the ratio, I accept the contentions of the party and...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Amar Plast Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT482TriDel

1. In these three appeals the Revenue had challenged the validity of the order dated 21-7-1993 of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise only to the extent of his disallowing the clubbing of the clearances of the three units, namely M/s. Amar Plast Industries, M/s.Avon Plast Industries and M/s. Film Plast Packaging.2. According to the Revenue, M/s. Amar Plast Industries (respondents), M/s. Avon Plast Industries on reaching the exemption limit deliberately and wilfully fragmented their units by sharing finance, shed, machineries etc. and created a new unit, namely, M/s. Film Plast Packaging with the sole and mala fide intention of evading Central Excise duty on the goods manufactured by them by taking advantage of Notification 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended. They deliberately suppressed the material facts about the formation of M/s. Film Plast Packing from the Central Excise department. All these three units exchanged loans and utilised machines of one another. The newly c...

Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT99TriDel

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the lower Appellate Authority who has denied credit on certain items used by them in the manufacture of VP sugar and molasses holding that they are not capital goods within the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. I have heard both sides. The appellants have explained the functions of each of the items in dispute. I give below my findings on each of the items : (a) Molasses pumps : This item has already been held not to be eligible to credit under Rule 57A as it is not capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q vide Final Order Nos. A/776 to 777/98-NB, dated 8-9-1998. This order has been passed in the case of the same assessee. Following the ratio thereof, I hold that molasses pump is not entitled to capital goods credit. (b) Diesel Generator sets : This is used to produce electricity in small quantity when turbine is not required to be used. Diesel generator sets were already covered under Cl...

M.T.N.L. Vs. Dr. Hirday Nath

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal filed by the appellant is directed against order dated 24.6.1997, passed by District Forum No. IV in Complaint Case No. 38/96/T entitled Dr. Hirday Nath v. The Divisional Engineer (Phones) KKD Exchange, Hargovind Enclave, Delhi and Anr. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal briefly stated are that the respondent Dr. Hirday Nath filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Forum, averring that his telephone bearing No. 2216580 (new number 2146580) installed at his premises for clinical purposes, remained out of order from 5.9.1995 to 28.11.1995 (nearly 83 days) and the same was not put in order inspite of complainants on Phone No. 198 and written complaints made to the various functionaries of appellant. The respondent, in the complaint filed by him claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the harassment and sufferings to whic...

Mrs. Sushila Saluja Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 read with Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to as the Act) against Delhi Development Authority [hereinafter referred to as the opposite party (OP)]. 2. The facts, briefly stated are, that the complainant got herself registered with the opposite party, under the Vth Self Financing Scheme, 1982, for a Category III flat, and deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- vide receipt No. 10100 dated 3.8.1982. Thereafter, the opposite party allocated a flat to the complainant in Pocket 8, Sector C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi vide allocation-cum-demand letter dated 20.1.1984. The complainant deposited only one instalment and due to financial problems surrendered the said allotment, in April, 1985. Later, on 20.10.1986, the complainant applied for the restoration of the allotment of the flat and also personally met the concerned official of the opposite party. In response to her above represen...