Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments

K.S. Singh (Dr.) Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1006; 88(2000)DLT381; 2000(57)DRJ22

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner who retired as a Director General of Anthropoligical Survey of India, is stated to be renowned expert in his field. The petitioner after his retirement in March 1993, worked as a consultant with the UOI on the project 'People of India', which had been commenced by the petitioner, prior to his retirement. 2. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that after his retirement, he was engaged as consultant by the UOI and he continued to work in that position for completion of the project. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being a renowned world expert in his field was totally committed to complete this prestigious project for the country. He thereforee, whole-heartedly kept on working on this project, at the behest of the respondents with their full knowledge and consent. The respondents in recognition of the same, entered into a consultancy arrangement which was up to September 1994. The petit...

M/S.Vimal Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture Iron & Steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed modvat credit of Rs.14,834.39 on the Foundry Fluxes/Chemicals under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1994. The Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise, Patiala vide his Order dt. 10.5.96 held that the Foundry Fluxes/Chemicals are used in the preparation of Sand Mould which in turn are used in the manufacture of castings. He has held that these are capital goods. He has observed that Rule 57A does not provide taking of the modvat credit on the inputs which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of capital goods which in turn are used in the manufacture of final products. He has accordingly, confirmed the demand of above stated amount on the appellants under Rule 57-I.2. The party filed an appeal against the above order of the Asst.commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh dismissed the appeal of the party upholding the o...

M/S Essenjay Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc, Bombay

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants in this appeal are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, dated 31.12.91, whereby a penalty of Rs.1 lakh was imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The appellants were indenting agents in India for machine tools manufactured by M/s Mikron AG, Switzerland. The machine tools manufactured by M/s Mikron AG included Universal Milling and Boring Machines. M/s Sheet Metal Industries (in short, M/s SMI), Madras imported what was described as "MIKRON, SWISS MAKE MODEL WF 51C-1 TOOL ROOM PRECISION CO-ORDINATE JIG BORING MACHINE WITH 3 D CNC continuous Path Control and Display Screen TNC 155" manufactured by M/s Mikron AG, Switzerland, and filed Bill of Entry dated 16.1.86 for clearance of the goods at the Bombay Customs. In the invoice issued by the foreign manufacturers also, the goods were described as above. Along with the Bill of Entry, M/s SMI also filed a declaration, declaring that they had not received, and were ...

M/S. Oswal Vanaspati and General Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture vegetable oil products falling under Chapter Heading 15.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing modvat credit on inputs/packing material under Rule 57A. On verification of their records, it was found that on 22.7.96, they were having certain stocks of inputs and packing material in respect of which the party had availed the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.2,34,157/-. The proceedings were drawn against them which culminated in Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division I, Ludhiana passing Order-in-Original dt. 11.8.99, in which he observed that the vegitable oil products falling under Chapter Heading 15.04 were exempted from payment of excise duty vide Notfn. No.16/96-CE dt. 23.7.96. It is stated that as per Rule 57C, modvat credit cannot be availed if the final product is exempted from duty, as such modvat credit availed by the party in respect of the inputs lying in stock as on 22.7.96 was in admissible and the same was li...

M/S Agauta Sugar and Chemicals Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC320

1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar. On 12.03.96, a team of Central Excise (Preventive) Officers visited their factory by surprise and conducted check. They found that two Turbo Generating Sets (in short, TG Sets) had been installed in the factory.Later, by letter dated 03.04.96, the Department was informed by the appellants that the TG Sets had been purchased from D.L.F. Industries Ltd. Faridabad, whereupon M/s D.L.F. Industries were asked by the Department by letter dated 15.05.96 to produce the agreements/contracts relating to the TG Sets entered into between them and the appellants, and also certain other documents. In response to this requisition, M/s D.L.F. Industries submitted the documents. On examination of the said documents, the Department found that three separate agreements had been made between D.L.F. Industries and the appellants on 13.05.91. The first agreement was for conceptualisation, System Engineering & Corrective Engineering, Prepa...

Mekastar Telematics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT285TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Mekastar Telematics Ltd. is whether the Computer Software and Protocol Analyses imported by them, are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 51/96-Cus., dated 23-7-1996 and whether the amendment made in Notification by Notification No. 20/2000-Cus., dated 1-3-2000 is retrospective in effect.2. Shri K. Kumar, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported the impugned goods under Bill of Entry No. 793566 dated 20-7-1999 from U.S.A. for and on behalf of Telecommunication Engineering Centre, Department of Telecommunication (TEC, in short); that they claimed exemption from payment of Customs duty under Notification No.51/96-Cus. which exempts scientific and technical instruments, apparatus, equipments if the importer, Public funded research institution, is registered with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; that the Customs cleared the consignment extending the exemption benefit; that subsequently a show ca...

Xerox Modicorp Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC620

1. The issue involved in this machines imported in knocked down condition amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri Sudhakar Awasthi, Representative of the Appellants, submitted that they placed order for the purchase of 400 fax machines in knocked down condition with M/s. Samsung Ltd., Seoul; that the consignment was received under Bill of Entry No. 103934 dated 30-6-1992; that in their letter dated 24-6-1992, they requested to allow the clearance of machines without payment of excise duty since consequent to the assembly the resultant product would have the same identity namely facsimile machine which had been subjected to both the duty of Customs; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order, has held that the activity carried out by them over the imported consignment to make it complete facsimile machine amounts to manufacture and Central Excise duty is liable to be paid: that there is no change in the nomenclature of the product which was impo...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Delhi Steel Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT369TriDel

1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Axle Beam Assembly (Chapter Heading No. 87.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act) on job work basis. During the period February, 1991 to July, 1995, they supplied axle beam assembly to M/s. Punjab Tractor Limited (PTL) after fitting therein the bushes supplied free of cost by M/s. PTL. The cost of bushes was not included in the assessable value of the axle beam assemply for the purpose of determination of the Central Excise duty.Department contended that the cost of bushes should be included in the assessable value and, therefore, by show-cause notice dated 23.02.96, they raised a demand of Rs. 3,23,283/- on the appellants, alleging that there was a short payment of Central Excise duty to the said extent on account of non-inclusion of the cost of bushes in the assessable value of the goods cleared during the aforesaid period of dispute. For raising such demand of duty, the Department invoked the extended period of limitation prescribe...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dasmesh Castings (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT658TriDel

1. The respondent drew my attention to the following portion of the impugned order which is as under :- "I have considered the matter. The case has been made out purely on the basis of octroi receipts. Appellants case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of International Cylinders (P) Ltd., v. CCE -1999 (112) E.L.T. 584 (T). Hon'ble Tribunal has held that having regard to the fact as emerging from the above discussion, we feel that the allegation against the appellants can not be stated to have been substantiated to reasonable extent by any material on record. The department's case suffers from three major deficiencies, in as much as there is on clinching evidence on record to show that the material required for the manufactured of alleged number of cylinder had been received. It was further held that entry in octroi/sales tax barriers not tallying to the extent of actual transportation of goods in each trip and not evidence of actual receipt of raw mate...

Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT883TriDel

1. The brief facts of the case are that during 1996-97, the appellants had imported components/parts of motor cycle and cleared the same vide 40 bills of entry which were assessed provisionally because of Special Valuation Branch Loading, ranging between 1% to 5%. The matter relating to valuation was finalised vide order No. 10/98 dated 29.04.98 of the Assistant Commissioner (SVB), New Customs House, New Delhi whereunder the value declared by the appellants was accordingly finally assessed.Thereafter, the appellants filed a claim for refund of Rs. 72,00,432/- (amount of duty paid on SVB loading) on 16.04.99 and submitted documents in support of their refund claim on 21.05.99. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim of Rs. 8,05,311/- as inadmissible under Section 27 of the Customs Act and sanctioned the remaining amount of Rs. 63,95,121/-under Section 27 of the Customs Act but directed credit of this amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that grant of refund to th...