Delhi Court October 1999 Judgments

Winsome Yarns Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT153TriDel

"Charging Section for clearance to DTA in the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 is the Proviso to Section 3 of the Act. This charging Section does not speak of Central Excise Tariff at all. It only speaks of the Customs duty chargeable on like goods produced or manufactured outside India and the import duty chargeable under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the classification list @ 12.5% under Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995 read with Notification No. 40/93-Cus., dated 28-2-1993 has rightly been approved by the Asstt. Collector and the refund claim has also been rightly rejected by the above impugned Order-in-Original appeals against. This is immaterial whether the refund claim has been filed with proper documents or not. This would have been relevant provided the refund had been admissible to the ap-pellants. I, therefore, confirm both the Order-in-original. Apples are rejected".2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are 100% Expo...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Delta Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT951TriDel

1. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) has held that sodium rosinate added to pulp during manufacture of paper by the respondents is not known in the market and is, therefore, not goods on which duty can be levied. In coming to this conclusion, he followed the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the Shiva Paper Mills case reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 555.2. We have heard both sides. The submission of the learned DR is that sodium rosinate has shelf life and is classifiable under CET sub-heading 3801.19 during the period prior to 10-2-1987, and under CET sub-heading 3806.90 from that date, attracting duty at the appropriate rate. Learned Consultant for the respondents relies upon the Tribunal's decision which is a very detailed order holding that sodium rosinate is not marketable.3. The decision of the Tribunal cited by the learned Consultant is applicable on all fours to the present case. The Tribunal has relied upon its earlier order in the case of Indian Cardboard Industr...

Universal Silicon and Lubricants Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT671TriDel

1. The issue in this case relates to denial of benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 120/84 to products described by the appellants here in as Lubricating Preparations falling for classification under Chapter Heading 3403 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. The benefit of notification is available only to "blended or compounded lubricating oils and greases that is to say, lubricating oils and greases obtained by straight blending of mineral oils or by blending or compounding of mineral oils with any other ingredients." The explanation to the Notification sets out that the expression "mineral oil" has the same meaning as that ascribed to it under the Explanation I to Item No. 6 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944. The contention of the appellants is that the two .products namely Molykote 3694 Dispersion and Molykote SPGR Dispersion are entitled to the benefit of Notification as they are both lubricating greases and greases are admittedly covered by the Notif...

Nattoji Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT362TriDel

1. The issue raised in these two appeals relates to classification of certain products which the Department claim to be parts of scooters whereas the appellants claim them to be castings.2. In Order-in-Appeal in the case of Nattoji Industries, the appellants had argue before the Collector (Appeals) that their products could not be considered as parts of machinery or components of machinery and they are in fact cast articles classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 7616.90. They had contended that the cardinal principle of interpretation of the Tariff entries was that the items should be understood in the manner they are understood by the people who deal in the product. They were selling their product as castings and even the orders received by them were for manufacture of casting and they are also commercially understood as casting. The Collector (Appeals) had however, rejected their submissions and confirmed the Assistant Collector's order holding that the goods manufactured by the app...

Glass Graphic (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT740TriDel

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the activity of bevelling, edge polishing, sand blasting, acid frosting and colouring of glass and mirror, and were availing SSI exemption under Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986. Their factory premises was visited on 1-2-1992 when documents were recovered and seized and these documents showed that the appellants had cleared worked glass/mirror without payment of duty. The physical stock of the finished goods was compared with the statutory Central Excise records i.e. R.G. 1 register and it was found that the worked glasses (bevelled and edge polished) were in excess and other bevelled and edge polished glass were found short. After issue of a show cause notice and hearing the appellants, the Collector of Central Excise has confirmed duty demand on worked glass/mirror and also confiscated goods found in excess of stock as on the date of visit. He has also imposed penalties on the company and upon the Directors.2. The notice issued to the appel...

Kaypee Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC115

1. The appellant vide letter dated 26-5-1999 made a request of decide the appeal on merits.2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 1-7-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).3. In the impugned order the component parts, manufactured by the appellant, of machine used in the manufacture of ceramic tiles were held to be classified under Heading 8474.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.4. The contention of the appellant in the appeal memorandum is that the goods in question are parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with machines for working ceramic products classifiable under sub-heading 8464.00 and, therefore, as per specific description under sub-heading 8466.00 these products are classifiable under sub-heading 8466.00 of the Tariff. All the goods in question are exclusively used as parts and accessories for machine tools for manufacturing ceramic products. Therefore, are classifiable under sub-heading 8466.00 of the Tari...

Hitech Carbon Products and anr Vs. Inspector, Anti-evasion Central Exc ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)205; 82(1999)DLT89; 1999(51)DRJ653; 2000(67)ECC58

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1.By this petition under Section 482. Cr.P.C. petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 1st July, 1998 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi rejecting the petition under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners. 2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present petition are that M/s Hi-tech Carbon Products (Petitioner No.1) holder of Central Excise license No.2/4809/R-9/MOD-11/90 dated 14.11.90 are engaged in the manufacture of carbon paper rolls falling under sub-heading no. 4809.10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Rules, 1985. On 25.2.1991, the officers of the Central Excise (Preventive) Department inspected the factory premises of the petitioners and found that the provisional SSI Registration Certificate No. 55/55/60-4/STH, dated 8.11.1989 granted to the petitioners had expired on 7.11.1990 but the petitioners had started production/clearance of goods with effect from 9.2.1990 and the total value of the goods m...

Dinesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)644; 82(1999)DLT612

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Petitioner had filed an Original Application (in short OA) bearing No.1658/92 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal). According to him removal of his service was against the law as reasonable opportunity was not afforded to him. The enquiry held was in violation of the principle of natural justice. That the Disciplinary Authority flouted the law. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that petitioner was engaged as Hot Weather Waterman in May, 1978. He performed that job with broken periods. In June, 1988 he was substituted as Loco Cleaner and posted under Loco Foreman, Northern Railway, Moradabad. It was at Moradabad that a charge-sheet for major penalty was issued against him. Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 22nd August, 1991. The Disciplinary Authority acting on that report removed him from service vide order dated 6th September, 1991. Aggrieved by that order of removal, the OA was filed which has been dismissed by the Tri...

Parveen Bagga Vs. Surinder Pal Bagga

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 84(2000)DLT660; I(2000)DMC633; 2000(56)DRJ138

M.K. Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.3.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in HMA No. 35/1984 allowing the application filed by the respondent seeking for amendment of the petition.2. The petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent for dissolution of the marriage seeking for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty committed by the petitioner. The said petition was contested by the respondent. On 19.9.1988 an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC was filed by the respondent herein seeking for amendment of the petition seeking to add certain more facts constituting cruelty which allegedly had taken place after the filing of the divorce petition i.e. on 6.6.1984, 13.10.1984 and in August, 1984. 3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that in the original application under Order 6, Rule 17, the date of 13.10.1984 was mentioned as 13.10.1983. Subsequently, however, an application was...

Syed Shabbir Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. DD/MAS/18/96 (MS), dated 18-12-1996 under which a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). The amount of penalty has already been recovered by the department from out of the seized amount of Rs. 2,80,000. This order disposes of the appeal on merits. 2. The allegation against the appellant is that he received an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs from his brother Syed Tajuddin, a person resident outside India. The allegation is sought to be substantiated by the evidence of the appellants statement dated 20-4-1999 and recovery of an airmail envelope which is addressed to the appellant and has been sent by Tajuddin. 3. The appellant has not denied that the said Tajuddin is his brother and that he is residing outside India. However, he has denied that he had received the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs from his non-resident brother as alleged by th...