Delhi Court June 1999 Judgments

Rahul Misra Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT154TriDel

1. This is a case of import of a car purported to be under the transfer of residence. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for the car declaring the FOB price of the car as Rs. 18,35,260/-. The Department accepted this as a transaction value of the car and after allowing the depreciation for retention of the car in the foreign country and its use they assessed the car to duty.2. Shri J.S. Sinha, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this car was a replacement car inasmuch as the appellant was in a foreign country for a longer period and purchased this car in exchange of his old car. He submits that he did not have the manufacturer's invoice and therefore, it was incumbent on the Department to take Parkar's Price Catalogue for purpose of assessment after allowing the appellant a trade discount of 15%, VAT and road licence. He submits that these discounts and concessions were not provided to him. He also submits that he was in a foreign country for more than six years and ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kiran Electricals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1046TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the Order-in-Appeal dated 3-7-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay is under challenge. The matter relates to the classification of television antena wire. The respondents, M/s. Kiran Electronics had sought classification under sub-heading 8529.00 of the Central Excise Tariff as parts of antena. The Department classified the same under sub-heading 8544.00 of the Central Excise Tariff as wire and cables and filed an application with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).The Collector of Central Excise observed as under : - "If the goods are parts of aerials and antena, their classification could be under sub-heading 8529.00. If they are not such parts but they are merely used as conductors to conduct the signals from the antena or aerials to the television sets or elsewhere, they could be classified as wires and cables." He remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise to determine ...

Hindustan Safety Glass Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1054TriDel

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant.However, there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. It was also submitted by them that issue involved in this case has already been decided by the Tribunal in their own case as per Order No.264/99-A, dated 5-3-1999. They have also enclosed a copy of the same.2. The short point to be considered in this case is whether cost of secondary packing is to be included in the assessable value.3. Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR accompanied by Shri Shiv Kumar drew attention to the observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals) particularly para 4 of the internal page 3 of the impugned order, it reads as under : "Since in the appellant's case goods are generally sold packed in wooden boxes in the wholesale trade, the cost of such packing is includible in the assessable value. The appellant has failed to produce any evidence where the goods have been sold in only paper packing as claimed by them. However, even if for th...

Asian Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT160TriDel

2. The issue involved in these stay petitions are regarding waiver of payment of 10% penalty imposed by the Assistant Collector in the Order-in-Original for wrongful availment of Modvat credit. The said orders-in-original were confirmed by the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate authority.3. When the matters were heard it was felt that the appeals could themselves be disposed of with the consent of both sides. Appeals were taken up for disposal after waiving the pre-deposit of the penalty ordered to be paid by the Collector in the appellate order.4. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots falling under chapter sub-heading 7206.90 by electrical/induction furnace. They were availing Modvat credit under Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules. A show cause notice dated 15-7-1996 has been mentioned in this batch as an example in the batch of cases. It was mentioned therein that the Modvat credit was obtained by the appellant by breaking of ships defective ingots for ...

Lossy Colour and Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT156TriDel

1. This is an appeal for classification of a product sold in dual container, one container containing aluminium paste and the other container containing varnish. The assessee claims the classification under Chapter sub-heading 3212.90 whereas the Department holds that it is classifiable under Chapter Heading 32.08.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that for purpose of classification of a product in terms of Note 2 to Section VI of the Central Excise Tariff, the product must be having base of synthetic polymer, or chemically modified natural polymer or natural resins whereas he submits that Chapter Heading 32.12 speaks of Pigments including metallic powders and flakes, dispersed in non-aqueous media. He submits that in their case, the product is metallic paste disbursed in non-aqueous media in varnish. He submits that if the two chapter headings are read in terms of the contents of the product then the appropriate heading for classification of thei...

Dsm Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(85)LC352Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Allahabad made in Order-in-Appeal 37-CE/ALLD-97, dt. 20.2.1997 whereunder he declined the appeal of the appellants upholding the Order-in-Original holding that the twisted bars and rods which made platforms were not entitled to mod-vat credit under Rule 57Q as no duty being paid by the appellant on the platform.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Sugar and Molasses following under items 1701.31,1701.39 & 1703.10 of the CETA and were availing modvat credit facilities under Rules 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. In the show cause notice dated 27.4.1995 modvat credit on bars and rods were denied on the ground that they did not come within the purview of the capital goods under Rule 57Q. A reply was filed before the Jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner who did not agree with the contentions of the appellant. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner (A...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Casio Bharati Mobile

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1052TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue disputing admissibility of Modvat credit of the additional duty -paid on inputs viz., Radio Pager.2. Shri H.K. Saran, ld. SDR requested to condone the delay in filing the second supplementary appeal on the grounds that the original appeal was filed in time. Shri G. Shiv Dass, ld. Advocate on behalf of the respondents, has no objection. The delay in filing the supplementary appeal is condoned.3. Ld. SDR submitted that the respondents are importing Radio Pager which is used by them in the manufacture of Mobile Pager. As the Radio Pager imported by them itself is a complete product, they cannot avail of the Modvat credit as this is no more an input.4. Shri Shiv Dass, ld. Advocate on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the imported material is used by them in relation to the manufacture of their final product and accordingly the Modvat credit is admissible. He also pointed out that the Department is charging the duty on the final product...

Decora Ceramic Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT162TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-original dated 22-3-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot 2. Appellant M/s. Decora Ceramic are engaged in the manufacture of ceramic products like glazed tiles falling under sub-heading 6906.10.They are also manufacturing and consuming captively ceramic glaze frit for the coating of ceramic tiles.3. Shri Madhav Rao, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants, submitted that apart from the merits of classification of goods in question, the important point to be considered in this case is whether the appellants are not entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 217/86 with reference to the goods which were captively consumed.He submits that the goods which were captively consumed are falling under Chapter 32 and finished product i.e., glazed tiles are falling under Chapter 69 and both the Chapters are covered under exemption Notification No. 217/86. He submits that though exemption notification...

Anil Kumar Chopra Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal arises out of the order of the District Forum No. 1, dated 14.7.1994, dismissing the complaint of the appellant/complainant, in Complaint Case No. 1719/93 entitled as Shri Anil Kumar Chopra v. State Bank of India and Ors. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal briefly stated are that the appellant/complainant is a S.B.I. credit card holder and a credit card cheque book was issued to him. The credit card cheques, as per the scheme, are encashable from any branch of the respondent Bank as well as the branches of the Associate Banks, within the territory of India. As per the appellants case despite the above fact the cheques of the appellant/complainant were refused to be encashed on several occasions by the various branches of the respondent and its Associate Banks. Firstly, the Timarpur Branch of the respondent Bank refused the encashment of the appellants cheque on 7.9.1991. The appellant/complainant lodged a written comp...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Shetkari Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1108TriDel

1.The Revenue has filed the captioned appeal on the ground that the Collector in the order-in-original had not considered the fact that, as per the Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 52 in respect of products of Heading 5203 and 5204 winding or reeling of yarn would amount to manufacture.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn of various counts, in the form of cones, cross reels, hanks as well as plain reel hanks. The department alleged that the assessee manufactured yarn in hanks and cleared the same without payment of duty and without declaring manufacturing activity of reeling and winding. A SCN was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the duty amounting to Rs. 2,10,673.10 should not be demanded from them on yarn captively consumed for the manufacture of plain reel hanks during the period from 1-4-87 to 31-3-92 and why a penalty should not be imposed on them.3. In reply to the SCN the assessee in par...