Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Unity Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT622TriDel

1. The issue for determination in this appeal filed by the Revenue is the eligibility of stainless steel watch bands and watch straps falling under GET Sub-heading 9113.00 manufactured by the respondents herein to benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification 72/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986, which inter alia covers watch components.3. A watch consists of two main parts (1) the watch movement and (2) the container for the movement i.e. the case or cabinet. As per HSN Explanatory Notes at page 1539, a watch is complete when its components comprising the watch movement together with dial and the hands are fitted into a container or case. A wrist watch is capable of functioning as a wrist watch once the watch movement is fitted into the container. The bands or straps are only in the nature of accessories to the wrist watches. Hence, they are not covered by the Notification. The reliance placed by the learned Advocate on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court at Ahmedab...

Dewas Metal Sections Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT476TriDel

1. The issue for determination in this appeal is the classification of side cuttings and end cuttings arising during the course of manufacture of angles, shapes and sections of steel, which are the final products of the appellants herein. According to the assessees, the cuttings are defective goods, classifiable as waste and scrap under CET sub-heading 7204.90, while the Revenue's contention is that the cuttings are strips and skelps falling under CET sub-headings 7208.39 and 7208.40.2. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that in the case of LML Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.), the Apex Court considered the issue of classification of off-cuts of steel sheets used for manufacture of scooter parts and accessories. The Apex Court held that off-cuts which are the remaining portions of steel sheets, are not classifiable as waste and scrap of metal since they are not fit for recovery of metal, but are classifiabl...

Collector of Cus. Vs. General Marketing and Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT508TriDel

1. M/s. General Marketing & Manufacturing Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as GMMCO) entered into sales and service agreement on 26-2-1986 with M/s. Caterpillar Far East Ltd. They also entered into a distribution agreement for selling and supporting the caterpillar equipment by supply of imported spare parts to actual users.Investigation Circular No. 53/86, dated 8-4-1986 was issued by Special Valuation Branch of the Custom House directing provisional assessment of the goods imported by GMMCO from Caterpillar Far East Ltd. with 20% extra duty deposit pending finalisation of the assessment. Adjudicating authority after an elaborate investigation loaded the value of the goods imported by GMMCO by 8.3% to the value shown in the invoice for the purpose of assessment to duty. GMMCO took up the matter in appeal.Importer's contention was that their transaction with the foreign supplier was purely on principal to principal basis and no extra commercial consideration influenced the...

Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT839TriDel

1. Miscellaneous application No. 592/99 dated 20th September, 1999 was filed praying for accepting fresh documents in evidence and to direct the departmental authorities to furnish documents mentioned in this petition. When this application came up for orders, we heard the learned Counsel representing the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative in extenso. They also agreed to have the appeal heard and disposed of. Accordingly we perused the documents, heard the learned Counsel and the learned D.R. We are disposing of the appeal itself.2. Appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 27/94 dated 28-4-1999 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill. As per this order a liability of Rs. 1,33,02,518 has been imposed on the appellant in relation to Polyethylene Barrels manufactured during the period from 1987 to 1991. Out of that, Rs. 1,03,09,087 as Modvat credit is stated to have been wrongly availed in violation of the provisions contained in the rules. A pena...

Unicast P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT734TriDel

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein filed a claim for refund of Rs. 9,60,510/- on 17-4-1995 on the ground that the goods manufactured and cleared by them viz. PVC bars channels, etc., fell for classification under Headings attracting lower rate of duty than what was paid by them under different Headings of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. The Assistant Commissioner held that the claim was admissible on merits but directed transfer to the credit of the Consumer Welfare Fund established under Section 12C of the Act, on the ground that the appellants were not entitled to the amount since they had already passed on the duty burden to their customers and hence hit by the bar of unjust enrichment enshrined in Section 11B of the Act.The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order holding that the appellants did not produce any information/document to substantiate their claim that they had not passed on the duty burden. He, however, noted their submission that...

Govan Industrial Corporation Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT584TriDel

1. Appeal E/117/86-A was filed by the assessee questioning the correctness of Order-in-Original No. 40/85 dated 19-12-1985 passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi. As per that order duty demand of Rs. 1,29,530.98 under Rule 9(2) of the Rules read with Section 11A of the Act, made in the show cause notice, was confirmed.Adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 invoking Rule 9(2) and 173Q of the Rules on the assessee. Along with appeal, application praying for stay of operation of the impugned order was also filed. That application was disposed of by Stay Order No. 24/88, dated 29.01.1988. As per that order assessee was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 65,000 in cash and to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 65,000 totalling Rs. 1,30,000 within eight weeks from the date of that order. The party complied with that order. Consequently, order of stay granted by the Tribunal became operative. Thereupon, the Department moved miscellaneous application pr...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. U.P. Straw and Agro Products Ltd ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Bareilly, and relates to the asst. yr. 1990-91.2. The assessee is a company. It computed book profit under Section 115-J of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) at NIL in Annexure "D" of the IT return. The AO found that the P&L a/c of the assessee for the relevant previous year was not in accordance with the provisions of Parts II & III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, inasmuch as the assessee debited arrears of depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,65,18,620.3. It was explained before the AO that in the preceding years, depreciation was not claimed because of non-availability of profit to the extent of Rs. 2,50,25,974. Out of that in the year under consideration depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,65,18,620 was debited to the books of account. The AO did not allow the claim of the assesses in respect of arrears depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,65,18,620. He, therefore, recomputed the bo...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. U.P. Straw and Agro Products Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bareilly, and relates to the assessment year 1990-91.2. The assessee is a company. It computed book profit under section 115-J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') at NIL in Annexure "D" of the Income-tax return. The Assessing Officer found that the profit and loss account of the assessee for the relevant previous year was not in accordance with the provisions of Parts II & III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, in as much as the assessee debited arrears of depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,65,18,620.3. It was explained before the Assessing Officer that in the preceding years, depreciation was not claimed because of non-availability of profit to the extent of Rs. 2,50,25,974. Out of that in the year under consideration depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,65,18,620 was debited to the books of account. The Assessing Officer did not allow the claim of t...

D. Mehra Vs. Ravi Bhargava

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1143

ORDERKhan, J.1. Parties are fighting it out for one car parking which is claimed by both. 2. Petitioner, owner of plot No. A 277 situate at Shivalik entered into a collaboration agreement dated 13.4.1992 with a builder whereby she was to remain the sole owner of ground floor, basement floor, terrace rights of first floor and one covered parking Along with proportionate share in land underneath. The builder was to retain first floor and one car parking Along with interest in the land underneath. 3. It appears that builder sold his share to respondent and executed an agreement to sell dated 15.1.1993. After allegedly living amicably for some time, respondent filed Suit No. 26/96 for permanent injunction for restraining petitioner from disconnecting his water supply and from obstructing his car parking in the parking area below front bed room of ground floor. He also applied for adinterim injunction but trial court ordered status quo to be maintained till further orders by order dated 27....

Basant Ram and Sons and Anrs. Vs. Uoi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]110CompCas38(Delhi); 2000(56)DRJ491

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. Petitioners by this writ petition have assailed the order of the Central Government dated 12.4.1999, granting the approval under Section 224(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for removal of the statutory auditor, viz. petitioner No.1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Navin Chawla, has assailed the impugned order as being based upon irrelevant and extraneous considerations. He submits that the Central Government has given the approval in a mechanical manner and by relying on assertions and matters, which were not mentioned in the application for removal of the auditors. Further, that the impugned order was vitiated by noncompliance with the statutory provision under Section 224(7) of the Act. It is submitted that as per the statute, the previous sanction of the Central Government is required to the proposal, for removal of the statutory auditors, before expiry of their term, being considered in the General Body...