Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Borosil Glass Works Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT392TriDel

1. Issue involved in this appeal of Revenue is whether the multi-neck spherical vessels and cylindrical vessels are entitled to the benefit of Notification 52/86-C.E. The process of manufacture of producing the cylindrical vessels and spherical vessels is by applying the mouth blown process. Necks were being purchased from outside after payment of duty if any, in respect of one of the classification lists. However, in respect of the other classification lists involved in the other appeal in these cases necks were also being produced by mouth blown process.However, attachment of the necks with the spherical and cylindrical vessels is done by the process of heating and not by mouth blown process. Revenue seeks to deny the benefit of exemption Notification 52/86-C.E. (Sl. No. 5 of the table to the notification) on the ground that the entire process of manufacture of the end product that is multi-neck spherical vessel and cylindrical vessel has not been done with the help of mouth blown p...

Gpl Fibres Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC655Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Synthetic Staple fibres of Polyester, falling under GET sub-heading 5503.20, out of waste emerging at different stages of production. Certain goods manufactured by them which were supplied to various customers were received back by them (within one year of first removal) for reprocessing and D-3 intimations were given to the Jurisdictional Excise officers and entries were made in Form V register. The re-processed goods were subsequently cleared by the appellants on payment of duty thereon by issuing fresh invoices. Since they cleared reprocessed goods on payment of duty for a second time, the appellants filed refund claims, which were rejected by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise on the ground that co-relation between the goods cleared initially and goods which subsequently came back from the customers, was not possible, and since the returned goods had not been properly accounted for in the RG 1 regi...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Fuse Base Eltoro Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT279TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad. (i) Whether cost of bought out item is to be included in the ssessable value and whether installation charges are to be included.3. Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned SDR arguing for the Revenue submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of video projector.Along with video projector the following items were supplied (i) contact voltage stabilizes, Screen, External Speaker, mount sealing hardware, etc. He submitted that the Assistant Collector has given a clearance for that the party could not produce any instance in which the video projector has been sold without these items. Further, Assistant Collector has observed that all the above items are very much essential for a better and flawless picture & sound, and accordingly cost of such items are to be included in the assessable value. Shri Prabhat Kumar also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in th...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Maganlal Nandlal and Sons

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT597TriDel

1. Matter called. The respondent in Revenue's appeal M/s. Maganlal Nandlal & Sons has not appeared nor any one on their behalf. In fact notice of hearing has been returned undelivered by the postal authorities with some illegible remarks.2. Ld. SDR Shri A.K. Agarwal points out that this is a case of clubbing in which it is proposed by a show cause notice that three persons namely M/s. Maganlal Nandlal & Sons (2) M/s. S.K. Process and (3) M/s.Haresh & Co. were to be treated as one on account of splitting of the main party/assessee i.e. of M/s. Maganlal Nandlal & Sons. The impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise Bombay-II however holds that the proceedings initiated against M/s. Maganlal Nandlal & Sons, M/s. S.K. Process and M/s. Haresh and Co. are dropped. CBEC not being satisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the Collector Central Excise Bombay-II has reviewed the said order in exercise of its power under Section 35 E. Hence this appeal has be...

Kanhaya Lal Surinder Kumar Vs. Assessing Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)73ITD22(Delhi)

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for assessment year 1991-92 has been challenged on various grounds as raised.2. In the first ground of appeal the assessee has questioned the jurisdiction of the Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax. Investigation Circle, Faridabad in initiating the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. Shri Anand Prakash, the learned AR who appeared on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the assessee filed its return for assessment year 1991-92 on 31-7-1991. The aforesaid return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act and the intimation was received by the assessee on 1-10-1991. Subsequently the assessee received various notices as under :- 3. The aforesaid notices were issued by the Assessing Officer, Investigation Circle, Faridabad. The assessee received another notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with letter from the Assessing Officer, Ward-4, Faridabad fixing the date of hearing on 10-2-1995. The adjournmen...

Flemming LudIn Larsen Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)447; 1999CriLJ3114; 80(1999)DLT324; 1999(50)DRJ507

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks his release from detention. He also prays for setting aside of the order passed by Mr. Dharmesh Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, dated November 23, 1998 whereby a prima facie case was found in support of the requisition of the United States of America for his surrender and extradition. 2. The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows:-The petitioner, a Danish National, and his associate negotiated sale of 2 kgs. of cocaine to undercover detectives Mr. Richard Friedman and Mr. Keith Camelo from Hollywood Police Department in Broward County, State of Florida. Following the negotiations the petitioner delivered one kg. of cocaine to the undercover detectives on August 16, 1991 with the understanding that another kg. would be delivered to them within ten minutes. The petitioner and his associate were then arrested and charged. On December 2, 1991, the petitioner entered an open plea of guilty to the char...

M/S Milton Laminates (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc Ahemedabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s Milton Laminates (P) Ltd., is whether the decorative laminated sheets, submitted for export by them, are liable for confiscation and penalty under Section IV of the Customs Act is imposable on them for mis-declaring the weight of the impugned goods.2. Shri J.S.Agrawal, ld. Advocate, submitted that in the Shiping Bill No. 18775 dt. 08-11-96 under the D.E.E.C. Scheme, the Appellants declared the weight of paper based decorative laminated sheets as 725gms per sq. meter; that on examination of sample the weight was found to be 681 gm per sq. meter; that the Deputy Commissioner confiscated the propotionate export consignment valued at Rs. 69,994 under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 35,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- holding that shortage in wight was much higher i.e. 6.07% as against norm of 2.5% and there was misdeclaration in the weight of the goods and thereby at...

Art Rubber Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC124Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the impugned order dated 15-12-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad.2. The appellants are engaged in the business of manufacturing tubes and flaps falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 16 to the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act,1944 during the relevant period. It was the case of the department that the price at which the appellant sold the goods to CEAT is not the correct assessable value but deliberately kept low value and in some varieties of tubes they were even below the actual costs of production. Since the entire goods have been sold to CEAT except few and that too to the dealers of CEAT there is no scope to arrive at the conclusion that the price charged by the appellant to CEAT is normal price 'ordinarily sold' in the wholesale market. It was the contention of the party before the Adjudicating Authority that CEAT cannot be treated as a related person since the Appellant u...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. United Felt and Carpet

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT807TriDel

1. The respondents are manufacturers of floor coverings. They had been clearing "semi-finished floor coverings of felt" under Rule 56B for latexing to another unit. The impugned Order-in-Appeal set aside the classification of these items under sub-heading 5602.90 as 'felt' and consequential demand of duty. These appeals of Revenue are directed against that Order-in-Appeal.2. The appeals seek restoration of the original classification under sub-heading 5602.90 and reiterate the grounds relied upon in the Order-in-Original. It has been pointed out that fibres contained in the impugned items are loose at the pre-latexing stage and could easily be peeled off by application of some force and they become fit for use as floor covering only after they are latexed. Reliance has also been placed on the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 57 that felt when backed by rubber and plastic gives rise to floor covering. Therefore, at the stage before latexing the item is felt and not floor covering.3. Th...

Munna Lal Khandelwal Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC401Tri(Delhi)

1. Revenue's case is that acting on intelligence officers of DRI kept a watch on the persons coming to Kanishka Hotel on 5-1-1987 in the evening. They noticed from lobby of the hotel that the appellant herein and Harish Verma had moved up and down in the lift. Thereafter they noticed the appellant moving towards the basement parking lot. A team of officers alongwith two panchas reached the parking lot and found the appellant sitting in Driver's seat in white Maruti Car DDB 5871. They intercepted the appellant there, took his search and found 13 gold biscuits of 10 tolas each from a packet of newspaper found on his person. They also searched a briefcase in the possession of the appellant. On search of the same, 43 more gold biscuits were recovered from the said briefcase.2. In the meantime, another associate of the appellant, namely Harish Verma had been intercepted by Customs Officers at the reception of the Hotel. He led the Customs Officers to the hotel room No. 1318. The said Haris...