Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. G.S. Iron and Steel Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT302TriDel

1. This appeal by the Revenue relates to a very small premise. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide his Order-in-Original dated 17-11-1997 ordered for the confiscation of the goods seized from the respondents totally amounting to Rs. 1,09,725/'- under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, he gave the party an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. Since the goods had already been released provisionally to the party, the Assistant Commissioner appropriated the amount of Rs. 20,000/- given as security at the time of provisional release of the goods towards redemption fine. He further ordered for the confiscation of the Truck bearing No.UP-80F/9793. In respect of the confiscation of this truck also, he gave the party an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Since this vehicle had also been provisionally released, he appropriated the security amount of Rs. 1000/- furnished by the party.2. On appeal by the respondent...

Asian Hotels Limited Vs. Asian Hotels Employees Union and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000(84)FLR359]; (2000)ILLJ641Del

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This Order will dispose of two interim applications, viz. is 4311/99 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is 4977/99 filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Plaintiff Asian Hotels Limited have instituted the present suit for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from holding any demonstrations, Dharna, etc. within a radius of 500 meters from the boundary wall of Hotel Hyatt Regency. Defendant No. 1 is the Asian Hotels Employees Union and defendants 2 to 16 are the office bearers of defendants No. 1 and employees of the plaintiff. 3. The suit was instituted on 28.4.1999 and was accompanied by is 4311/99. Vide an ex parte order dated 29.4.1999 the defendants were restrained from holding any demonstrations, Dharnas within a radius of 250 metres from the boundary wall of Hotel Hyatt Regency. Defendants subsequently filed is 4977/99 for vacating the ex pa...

M/S. Flex Engineering Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant filed these applications for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. The question of law: 1. "Whether, in the circumstances of the present case facts of which are not in dispute, duties paid on material namely plastic films/poly paper used ford testing machines for forming commercial/technical opinion as to their marketability/excitability would be eligible to be taken as credits under Rule 57A read with the relevant Notification"? 2. "Whether such use of material in testing in view of the purposes mentioned above, could be said to be "use in the manufacture of" or use in relation to the manufacture of the final products viz. Machines as assembled?" 3. For the earlier period where the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of testing material was denied the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide order dated 1.7.1997 directed the Tribunal to refer the above mentioned question of law. In view of this, the Reference applications are allowed and t...

JaIn Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT888TriDel

1. Appellant, M/s. Jain Enterprises, filed a Bill of Entry No. 14/99 dated 25.03.1999 in relation to import of 1020 bales of cotton garments weighing 1,02,000 Kgs. Garments were described in the Bill of Lading as "Old Lot Stock Garments". The value of the garments was shown at US $ 0.40 per Kg. Customs Authorities did not accept the value shown in the Bill of Entry, Bill of Lading and the Invoice. The value was enhanced to US $ 0.50 CIF per Kg. Accordingly, the value of the imported materials was found to be Rs. 21,96,902.00 as against Rs. 15,50,764/- shown in the Bill of Lading. Consequently, the lower authorities came to the conclusion that the import of the consignment was against the Provisions contained in Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act.Consequent to this, goods were directed to be confiscated. Importer was given an option to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 10 Lakhs. Penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs was also imposed invoking the Provisions contained in...

M/S. Rapid Controls Private Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT769TriDel

1. The issue involved in these two appeals is whether the Control Valves, manufactured by M/s. Rapid Controls P. Ltd.,are classifiable under Sub-heading 8481.80 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as claimed by them, or under Sub-heading No.8481.10, as confirmed by the Commissioner, under the impugned Order.2. Shri V.Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture following industrial Control Valves in their factory:- He submitted that the Valves manufactured by the Appellants find application in water lines in industrial installations; that those water lines can be for large air conditioning or cold storage plant or in any heat exchanger; that these valves are also use in normal water lines in industrial or commercial establishments; that though the Commissioner has accepted their stand that the valves are used in the water lines in large air conditioning plants, yet he has classified the impugned valves under Sub-heading 8481.10, holding tha...

Majestic Auto Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT490TriDel

1. The issue involved in the present appeal relates to the classification of a product, namely, "Hero Basic (four wheeled)" which according to the appellants is a toy designed to be ridden by the children. They have claimed its classification under Chapter 95 (sub-heading 9501.00 attracting nil rate of duty) of the schedule appended to the CETA whereas the Revenue has sought its classification under Chapter 87 (sub-heading 8705.00) of the schedule appended to the CETA.2. The appellants are manufacturer of two wheeled motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the schedule appended to the CETA. They on 24-10-1996 filed a declaration under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules for classification of their new product named "Hero Basic" i.e.four wheeled motor vehicle and claimed its classification under Chapter 95 (sub-heading 9501.00) of the schedule appended to the CETA. But the Assistant Commissioner did not accept their classification and through order in original, dated 5-2-1997 ord...

Netplast Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT88TriDel

1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of spools for motor vehicles etc., and were availing the facility of Modvat credit on the inputs used in or in relation to such manufacture in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. On the basis of information gathered by Central Excise (Preventive) officers, who visited the appellants' factory on 07.07.1994, it was found by the Department that the appellants had cleared the product, classifiable under Chapter sub-heading No. 3923.90 attracting Central Excise duty @ 30%, to principal manufacturers on payment of duty at lower rate since January, 1994 and that such clearance was made by them by mis-classifying the goods under Chapter sub-heading No. 8448.00 which attracted Central Excise duty @ 10% in respect of clearances to buyers who were not SSI units and @ a minimum of 5% in respect of clearances to others in terms of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as amended. The duty allegedly short-paid was estimated at Rs. 1,39,131.00. The...

Kudremukh Iron Ore Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC391

1. Issues raised in all these appeals are common. They relate to the availability of exemption from Customs duty as per Notification No.13/81-Cus. dated 9.2.1981 as amended subsequently. Appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, got spare parts imported for their Wabco Trucks, P&H Shovel, Motor Graders, CAT Front End Loader, Terex Front and Loader, Komatsu Dozer, 35T Capacity Haulpack Truck, Poclain Excavator and Water Sprinklers. These equipments were, according to the appellant, part of the machinery used in their mine where iron ore is being mined and exported to foreign countries. The spares imported for the above-mentioned machines were claimed to be spares of machinery used for the purpose of manufacture of article meant for exports out of India and so falling within the purview of Notification No. 13/81-Cus dated 9.2.1981 as amended by subsequent notifications. On this basis it was stated that those spares imported are not liable to duty. But those spares were cleared on paym...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Electronics and Engineering Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT712TriDel

1. In this appeal the Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) to a limited extent to which duty demand for the period 1-3-1994 to 1-4-1994 in respect of "Battery Pack" manufactured by the respondents, had been held to be time barred.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The respondents filed classification lists Nos. 2/92-93, dated 1-3-1993, 1/93-94, dated 1-4-1994, 4/93-94, dated 1-3-1994 and 1/94-95 dated 1-4-1994, wherein they classified their product viz. Connecting cable, battery pack and battery charger cum power pack under sub-heading 9031.00 of the CETA but these were all approved provisionally and show cause notice was issued to them by the Assistant Collector on 27-6-1994 as to why the product, battery pack and battery charger cum power pack be not classified under sub-heading 8507 of CETA and he changed the classification of the product battery pack from sub-heading 9031.00, as claimed by the...

Nagpal Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT388TriDel

1. The appeal is listed for admission. Appellant filed letter dated 19-7-2000 and made a request to decided the appeal on merits. In this case the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 46,922/- on the ground that appellant had not received the inputs but only received the invoices on the basis of which the credit was taken. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the enquiries made by Range Officer shows that supplier/manufacturer of the inputs to the appellants were not manufacturing the inputs on which the appellants availed the credit.2. Since the manufacturer who supplied the inputs was not in a position to manufacture the goods and the appellant failed to prove that inputs were received in their factory. There is no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at this stage....