Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments

Bhansali Engineering Polymers Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC253

1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of ABS Polymers (Acrylo-nitrile Butadiene-Styrene-Terpolymers) falling under CET sub-heading 3906.30.During the process of manufacture, ABS waste is generated which is reprocessed to manufacture granules known as reprocessed granules. They had been filing classification lists/declarations under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules wherein they had classified reprocessed granules under CET subheading 3903.30. However, in Declaration No.18/95-96 w.e.f. 9-5-1995, they classified the item under CET sub-heading 3915.20 attracting duty at the rate of 25% ad valorem.Subsequently, in the Declaration No. 21/95-96 w.e.f. 19-5-1995, they classified reprocessed granules under CET sub-heading 3903.30 and claimed nil rate of duty under Notification No. 111/95-C.E., dated 6-9-1995. In these two declarations, they classified ABS waste under CET sub-heading 3915.20 and claimed nil rate of duty under Notification No. 67/...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Assotex Engg. Inds. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT715TriDel

1. In this appeal, preferred by the Revenue, the issue involved is the classification of Soft Ferrite Components whether classifiable under Heading 85.48, as held by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order or under Heading 85.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as claimed by the department.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents, in spite of notice. We, therefore, heard Shri R.D. Negi, ld. SDR and perused the records including the cross -objections filed by the respondents.3. The respondents, in their classification list, had classified Soft Components under Heading 85.48 of the Tariff. A show cause notice dated 28-6-1989 was issued to them for classifying the product under Heading 85.05 on the ground that the impugned product was intended to become permanent magnet after magnetisation. Both the Assistant Collector in the adjudication order and the Collector (Appeals ) in the impugned order, classified the product under 85....

Gupta Pigments and Chemical P. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC258

1. The appellants filed this appeals against the Order-in-Original dated 5.5.97 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal).2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3.5.94, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that they had wrongly availed of the benefit of deemed credit in respect of various inputs such as, pure lead, lead scrap, old battery scrap, unwrought lead ingots/wroughts and lead dross/ash, etc. as the inputs were clearly recognisable as being non-duty paid or wholly exempt from duty. In the show cause notice, a proposal for confiscation of 3450 kgs. of red lead, which was found in excess to their statutory record and imposition of penalty was also made. Thereafter on 1.11.94, another show cause notice was issued to the appellants for the period Jan., 90 to Oct., 93 on the ground that they had wrongly availed of the facility of deemed credit as the inputs used in the manufacture of final product are clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. Afte...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Texocaps

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC108

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was available to the excisable goods cleared by the Respondents during the financial year 1992-93 (1.4.92 to 21.5.92) 2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondent who have requested to decide the appeal on merits in their letter dt. 9.8.99. We, therefore, heard Shri Jagadish Singh, Ld. DR, and perused the records. The Assistant Collector, under order dated 20.5.93 had denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/ 86 holding that the Respondents had availed exemption under para 4(a) of the Notification No. 175/86 during 85-86, clearance value being less than Rs. 7.5 lakhs and their clearance during 91-92 had exceeded Rs. 7.5 lakhs. On Appeal, the Collector (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the Respondents had not availed of exemption under Clause (a) of Proviso to para 4 of Notification No. 175/ 86 and availed of only under Clause...

Klockner Windsor (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT751TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 18-8-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2.1 In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), held that rafia tape plant (plastic processing machine) is classifiable under Heading 84.77 of the Central Excise Tariff.4. The appellants are manufacturing plastic processing machines, known as Rafia Tape Plants. The contention of the appellants is that the machine is used for producing HDPE/PP tapes and twines/ropes are classifiable under Headings 54.06 and 56.07, which are textiles and textile articles covered Under Section XI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Therefore, the machine is for extruding, drawing, texturising or cutting man-made textile materials and is classifiable under 84.44 of the Central Excise Tariff.5. The contention of the Revenue is that the machine, in question, is classifiable under 84.77 of the Central Excise Tariff as the raw-material for the machine i...

Association for Dev. Youth India Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC261

1. The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Association for Developing Youth (India) against the order-in-original No. KDL/COMMR/23/97, dated 29-7-1997, passed by the Commissioner, Customs, Kandla.2. Briefly stated the facts are that three consignments of old and used cloths had been imported and the name of the consignee shown was M/s.Association for Developing Youth (India) H. No. 29, Sector 4, Gurgaon, Haryana. Intelligence was received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to the effect that imported old and used cloth were meant to be cleared free of customs duty claiming them to be meant for free distribution to the poor, but actually these were to be sold in the market. Investigation revealed that the address belonged to Shri Hitesh Kumar Sharma who, in his statement dated 4-6-1996, stated that he was the owner of the House No. 29, Sector 4, Gurgaon; that he had no connection with the said Association; that one Shri Gopal Krishna Sharma used to stay in his house and he ha...

Shri B.S. Rajesh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant in this O.A. has challenged the Annexure A-5 order dated 18.8.1992 dismissing the applicant from service with immediate effect and prayed that the said order be quashed and set aside. The applicant further seeks direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service giving him all the consequential benefits. The applicant joined service as Tracer under the Government of India, Ministry of Defence in the month of November, 1975. He was thereafter promoted to Draftsman in the year 1983 and further promoted to Senior Draftsman in the year 1986. Since then he had been discharging his duties as such till he was dismissed from service by Annexure A-5 order.3. On the basis of a criminal case, the applicant was placed under suspension by Annexure A-1 order dated 25.10.1990. He submitted a representation on 9.6.1992 praying for revocation of the order of suspension. There was no reply to the said representation. The applicant, thereafter, submitted Annexure A-3 representatio...

Rollatainers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-III, New Delhi, and relates to the asst. yr. 1990-91.2. The following three grounds taken in this appeal are reproduced here as under : "1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in treating Rs. 49,741 as prior period expenses. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing, inter alia, that the liability in respect the aforesaid expenditure crystallised during the asst. yr. 1989-90, "because all actions relating to accrual of liability had been undertaken or done during that previous year. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the expenditure on rent, repairs and depreciation amounting to Rs. 2,32,434 under s. 37(4). 3. That the CIT(A) erred on fact and in law in not holding that other income amounting to Rs. 8,32,191 was part of profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking for purposes of deduction under s. 80-I. 3.2 That the...

T.T.K. Biomed Limited Vs. M/S. Japna Exports and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)132; AIR2000Delhi62; 82(1999)DLT317; 1999(51)DRJ340

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. In response to the Order xxxvII suit, filed by the plaintiff, the leave to defend by way of an affidavit on behalf of defendant No. 2 has been filed on 23.3.1998.2. The plaintiff's case is that the contracted goods were supplied to the defendants on 3.1.1996 and shipped by the defendants to its eventual destination in Moscow as per the Bill of Lading dated 22.1.1996. The defendants had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- by bank draft and post dated cheques for Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 3,25,000/-. The first cheque bearing No. 769514 dated 29.12.1995 was cleared on 4.1.1996 and at the request of the defendant No. 1/firm, the plaintiff delivered the goods through a clearing Agent. Thereafter there was some dispute regarding export documents and on 8th February, 1996, the defendants informed the plaintiff that they have instructed their bank to stop payment of the remaining post dated cheques without the obtaining of export documents.3. The plaintiff's ...

Vijay Nayyer Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)237

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. These objections are to the Award dated 23rd August, 1984 of the Arbitrator raised by the respondents - DDA in IA.1199/86. 2. There are two principal objections raised by the respondent - DDA in IA.1199/86 to the Award. 3. The first objection to the Award is that there was no requisite exten-sion of time for making and the Award is, thereforee, without jurisdiction. Mr. Arya, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a letter dated 2.8.1984 issued by the Executive Engineer. Housing Division No. XI, DDA, New Delhi to the Arbitrator which records that the respondent's office has no objection for the extension of time to give the Award up to 31st August, 1984. In view of this express extension of time granted by the respondent DDA, there is no merit in this objection particularly when the Award was delivered on 23rd August, 1984, within the extended period. The same is accordingly dismissed. 4. The second objection to the Award is that insofar as it refe...