Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC893Tri(Delhi)

(1) whether the invoices issued by the unregistered dealers can be accepted as valid documents for claiming Modvat credit and (2) whether the endorsed invoices can be considered as valid documents for claiming Modvat credit after 1-4-1994.2. The first issue has arisen on account of conflicting views rendered by different Benches of the Tribunal as is evident from the reference order made in Appeal No. E/2138/97-NB. Injayana Time Industries v.C.C.E., Meerut, 1997 (93) E.L.T. 245, the Tribunal disallowed the Modvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by unregistered dealers while in Bengal Safety Industries v. C.C.E. [1997 (18) RLT 241] Sandish Combine Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1999 (105) E.L.T. 468, C.C.E. v.Colour Coats, 1998 (26) RLT 403, Pearl Industries v. C.C.E., Raipur, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 745 (T) and Shiv Iron Brass Works v. C.C.E., New Delhi decided vide Final Order No. A/2095/96-NB, dated 22-8-1996 the Tribunal had taken the view that the invoices issued by the unregistered deal...

Manu Steel Processors Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT641TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Manu Steel Processors the matter relates to the classification of threaded bungs. The appellants had classified the same under sub-heading 8309.90 of the Tariff while the Revenue had classified the same under sub-heading 7311.00 of the Tariff which covered containers for compressed or liquefied gas of iron or steel.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, Advocate submitted that the goods were threaded bungs which were specifically described under sub-heading 8309.00. As the goods were specifically described in sub-heading 8309.00, their classification under sub-heading 7311.00 was not justified as the same covered containers, and the parts were not covered by that Heading.3. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR replied that for the bungs the Heading No.73.11 was specific and the goods had no other use than for the LPG gas cylinders.4. After carefully considering the arguments advanced on both the sides, we find that the threaded bungs are specifically included in sub-heading No. 830...

Pheonix Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC191

1. In this appeal filed by M/s Pheonix Appliances Pvt. Ltd. the matter relates to the classification of the kitchen Sink. Following his earlier order dated 14.12.92 the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has confirmed the view taken by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise that the goods in question were correctly classifiable under Sub-heading 7324.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Sub-heading 7323.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.3. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR submitted that in the appellants' own case the Tribunal in Pheonix Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE had held that the kitchen sinks were correctly classifiable under Sub-heading 7324.00 of the Tariff. As the matter is already covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we agree with the view taken by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is rejected....

Garden Silk Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC494

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. the matter relates to the classification of the design punched jacquard cards (hereinafter referred to as the "Cards')- Such cards were used in the weaving department on jacquard looms for weaving jacquard dobby fabrics which had designs on the body of the fabrics. They were alleged to be classified under sub-heading No. 4823.90 of the Central Excise Tariff under show cause notice dated 19-2-1992. The Collector of Central Excise, Surat, who adjudicated the matter referred to Note 9 and Note 10 in Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff wherein it was provided that Heading No. 48.23 of the Central Excise Tariff applied inter alia to perforated paper or paperboard cards for jacquard or similar machines. Prior to 1-3-1988, the cards were classifiable under sub-heading No. 4818.90, and from 1-3-1988 onwards they were classifiable under sub-heading No. 4823.90. With regard to suppression, wilful statement and withholding of information...

Cepham Organics Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(95)LC594Tri(Delhi)

1. Arguing the case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 25,56,893/- and an equal amount of penalty, Shri P.K. Mittal, Ld.Counsel submits that in this case, there has been total failure of justice because of non-observance of principles of natural justice. He submits that all records of the factory were taken by the Excise authorities; that when the applicant requested the Department to furnish copies of the relied upon documents, instead of furnishing the copies, they were asked to take copies of whatever records they want.He submits that when their representative visited the office of Asst.Commissioner, he was given only a few documents and other documents were not supplied. He submits that in the absence of supply of relied upon documents. He was not in a position to prepare his defence effectively. Ld. Counsel submits that this has become a great handicap for him. He also submits that a date of hearing wag fixed but, as the date of hearing was not convenient to him a...

Nagar Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC497

1. These are two appeals; one filed by M/s. Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. and the other by Shri M.S. Tyagi, Executive Director of the company.They are aggrieved with the common order-in-original dated 14-5-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The matter relates to the classification of the goods which the appellants claimed to be classifiable under Heading No. 52.02 while the Revenue sought to classify the same under Heading No. 52.03 of the Central Excise Tariff.Under show cause notice dated 2-2-1999, the demand of central excise duty of Rs. 29,95,738/- was made for the period June 1998 to December 1998. Penal provisions were also invoked. Penalty was also proposed to be levied on Shri M.S. Tyagi, Executive Director of the Company. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, who adjudicated the matter observed that the flat strip waste generated from carding machine, comber noil waste generated...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Polar Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT39TriDel

1. M/s. Polar Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as PIL') had procured their inputs from the manufacturers availing of the small scale exemption and paying central excise duty at the concessional rate. PIL were engaged in the manufacture of electric fans and were not eligible for the small scale exemption. On receipt of the inputs from the small scale assessees, they took Modvat credit. They however, did not utilise these inputs in the manufacture of electric fans and removed such inputs as such without any processing. On removal of the inputs, they paid central excise duty equivalent to the Modvat credit taken by them on receipt of the said inputs. During the relevant time the inputs could only be removed for home consumption on payment of appropriate duty of excise as if such inputs had been manufactured by the assessee receiving them, as per provisions of Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules')- The Asstt. Collector of Central Excis...

Kuldip Sharma and Another Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)101; 2000CriLJ1272; 84(2000)DLT358

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Shri P.L. Singla, 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellants under Section 420 I.P.C. They have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of rupees fifteen thousand, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the appellants are the sons of the accused Jagan Nath Sharma (since dead). The appellants were partners of M/s. J.N. Sharma & Sons. The said partnership firm used to manufacture engineering goods including galvanised telephone poles etc. In 1964, the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Government of India invited tenders for supply of 70,000 galvanised steel tubes rivetted (seam) tapered D-8'. The tender submitted by the said firm was accepted and the supply order A.T. No. SHM. 4/7289-N & 7391-N/1/64/JN/1614 dated 2.3.1964 was placed on the firm for supply of stores valued at Rs. 39,27,000/- @ Rs. 56.10...

Sarab Prakash Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 25.11.1999, passed by District Forum No.-I in Complaint Case No. 453/1999, entitled Sh. Sarab Prakash Advocate v. Delhi Vidyut Board and Anr. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal briefly stated are that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, averring that electric connection bearing No. K-1369960 was installed in his Chamber No. 480, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts Complex, Delhi. The grievance of the appellant, in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum in nutshell was that in respect of the above said electric connection he was receiving inflated and incorrect bills despite repeated requests. It was prayed by the appellant that the respondent be directed to prepare bills according to actual consumptio...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Standard Watch Co. P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT703TriDel

1. The revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-original dated 11-6-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise. In the impugned order the Additional Collector of Central Excise held that M/s. Standard Times Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Standard Watch Co. P. Ltd. are two separate legal identities and their clearances cannot be clubbed.2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Standard Times Pvt. Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of wall clocks and table clocks and were availing the benefit of small scale exemption. During the course of visit of the factory premises of M/s. Standard Times Pvt. Ltd., it was found that in the same premises another unit namely M/s. Standard Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. were also manufacturing wall clocks and table clocks.During investigation, it was found that the Director/partners of both the units are related persons. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents for clubbing their clearances on the ground that both the units are one.4. Ld. D...