Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments

Pradhan Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT867TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal dated 27-12-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the Order-in-Original dated 9-3-1993 deriving the benefit of Notification No. 166/86 dated 1-3-1986 as amended by Notification No. 75/90 dated 20-3-1990 to them in respect of their product 'foot valves'.2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has not contested the correctness of the impugned order so far it relates to the excisability of the product in question (foot valves) and the non-availability of benefit of Notification No. 166/86 to the appellants in respect thereof. Ld.Counsel has only stated that direction should be given to the adjudicating authority that availability of the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 175/86 to the appellants should be considered, while quantifying the duty demand, in accordance with the law, as they are small scale unit.3. Ld. SDR has got no objection if such a direction is given to the a...

Fair Banks Morse (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT386TriDel

1. In these two appeals - one filed by M/s. Fair Banks Morse (I) Ltd. and other filed by the Revenue - arising out of common Order-in-Appeal, the issue involved is whether various parts of the Power Driven Pumps are classifiable under Heading 84.13 as claimed by the assessee or under different headings/sub-headings of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Shri A. Dipankar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Assessee company has been manufacturing Power Driven Pumps and parts thereof since 1973 and there has been no dispute about the classification up to 1993; that they had filed two classification lists on 7-2-94 and 28-3-94 and 3rd classification list on 29-4-94; that the Asstt.Commissioner modified the classification list without issuing any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee; that the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Asstt. Collector with the direc...

Mrs. Amrit Surjit Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi110; 2000(57)DRJ681

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of Mandamus, inter-alia, on the following prayers.(1) Take penal action against erring respondents in accordance with Section 29.1 of the Building Bye-laws of Delhi Municipal corporation Act, 1957.(2) Declare, as illegal and unsafe, the new building at F-10. Jangpura Extension. New Delhi.(3) Arrange comparable alternate accommodation for the petitioners and their family members till a new building is constructed at F-11, Jangpura Extension, by the petitioners.(4) Grant compensation to petitioners, of an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs or more, depending on the market rate, for reconstruction of a new building at F-11, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi.3. Notice was issued in this petition and return has been filed by the respondents 8 to 10 as well as by respondent/ MCD. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the construction of...

Shilps Impex Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ820; 2001(73)ECC46; 2001(128)ELT54(Del)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This case is a classic example of how simple matters get complicated by authorities. As factual scenario would go to show to a large extent that Customs officials were largely responsible for the confusion and impasse created.2. In a nutshell the factual position asserted by petitioner and largely intraversed is as follows:One Mauve & Crimson imported consignment of toys under invoice dated 12.2.1999 for US $ 10,11160 and filed Bill of Entry dated 26.2.1999. The said concern could not make payment to the consignor of the imported toys. Shipper approached the petitioner to buy the materials. The Shipping Agent filed an undertaking with the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot (in short the Commissioner)and permission was accorded to amend the Import General Manifest in the name of the petitioner. On 11.6.1993, Bill of entry in favor of the petitioner was filed with the Commissioner. On 15.6.1999 the said authority directed checking of the goods. On 28.6...

Smt. Rama Bangia and Another Vs. Pushpa Builders Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The relevant facts, as stated in the present complaint, filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), are that the complainants, in response to the advertisements and a visit to Property Mela held by the opposite parties had jointly booked a Shop Unit in the complex Kewal Deep by depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in August, 1989. In pursuance of the said booking, the complainants were allotted a Shop Unit bearing No. 2-02-GF in the aforesaid complex. 2. It is stated by the complainants that they have paid the instalments regularly, as demanded by the opposite parties, from time-to-time and thus have paid a total amount of Rs. 6,87,880/- during the period from 10.3.1990 upto 30.9.1991 towards the total disposal cost of the shop allotted in their favour. It is further alleged by the complainants, in their complaint, that the opposite parties had represented in their advertisements that the Shop Unit, booked by ...

Chandigarh Lithotripsy Centre Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC380

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Chandigarh Lithotripsy Centre, is whether the exemption contained in Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1.3.1988 is available to the "Lithotriper Model Triper X-1" and 'urological X-ray examination.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants had imported medical equipments against custom duty exemption certification dated 10.1.91 issued by the Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi (DGHS) availing the exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus: that the Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned Order, confirmed the demand of Customs duty, imposed penalty and confiscated the impugned goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine, observing that the restrictions contained in the Notification come alive the moment the importer fail to comply with conditions; that these was continuing obligation on the part of the Appellants to discharge the obligations under the Notification; that the duty liability fel...

Jujo thermal Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC189

1. These three appeals arise out of the Customs Notification No.39/2000 dated 6th April, 2000 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. As per that notification, anti-dumping duty at the rate mentioned in the Schedule attached to it has been levied with effect from the date of imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, i.e., 11th October, 1999 on Thermal Sensitive Paper (hereinafter referred to as TSP) exported from European Union and Japan. M/s.Mitsubishi HITEC Paper, a manufacturer of TSP in European Union has been directed to pay anti-dumping duty at the rate of Rs. 1.61 per sq.metre and in respect of other exporters from the European Union at the rate of Rs. 1.84 per sq. metre. Exports from Japan were subjected to anti-dumping duty at the rate of Rs. 1.62 per sq. metre.2. The above notification is questioned by M/s. Jujo Thermal Ltd. of Finland, a manufacturer of TSP in Finland, by filing appeal No.C/373/2000-AD. M/s. All India Thermal Paper Dealers' Associatio...

Auro Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC194

1. In this appeal, final finding entered into by the Designated Authority constituted under the antidumping provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, as notified by the Ministry or Commerce on 24th July, 1995 is under challenge. As per decision of the Supreme Court, no appeal lies against the final finding arrived at by the Designated Authority.Appeal lies only against the anti-dumping duty notified by the Government of India. On this ground, appeal filed is illconceived.2. The final finding arrived at by the Designated Authority was notified in the Gazette dated 24th July, 1995. We have not been told that pursuant to the said finding arrived at by the Designated Authority, Government of India issued any notification imposing anti-dumping duty. As per Section 9A(5) of the Act, anti-dumping duty imposed shall cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition. More than five years have lapsed from the date on which the final finding arrived at by the Designat...

Pearl Drinks Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC153

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Pearl Drinks (P) Ltd. for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 34,78,331 confirmed and penalty Rs. 10,02,000 imposed by the Commissioner (Adjudication) under the impugned Order.2. Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, learned Advocate, submitted that the Applicants manufacture aerated water viz., Pepsi, Team, 7 UP, Mirinda, Soda and Bag in Box Syrup; that in their price list they had claimed deductions on account of expenses incurred towards transportation container service and other service charges; that the price list after various enquiries by the Department was duly approved; that the method of valuation adopted by them had been in existence for a number of years; that though the duty was specified prior to 1.3.94, a show cause notice was issued to them on the question of assessable value for the purpose of determining whether they had exceeded SSI exemption limit of Rs. 15 lakhs; that the Principal Collector, Central Excise, New De...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Ludhiana Beverages Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

"In dview of the discussion above, the Modvat credit on plastic crates and bottles was admissible to the party as the proportionate cost of these items was included in the final product".2. Arguing the case for the appellants Shri S.C.Pushakaran, Ld. DR submits thatSri Ram Drinks (P) Ltd. vs CCE Bhubaneshwar (1994 (72) ELT.427), CEGAT held that Modvat would not be admissible on such durable containers which were of returnable nature and it was categorically viewed that in the context of Advalorem duty, not only the provisions of Section 4(4) (d) (i) of Central Excise Act, 44 (say the Act) would be attracted for durable and returnable packages while determining the assessable value but also the exclusion clause of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 (say the Rules) (which excludes value of packing material/containers cost of which is not included in the assessable vaue of the final product) will come into play. b) that a Reference application has been filed against CEGAT's judgme...