Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

Cce. Vs. Unique Industrial Handlers (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC111

1. Short question that arises for consideration in this appeal filed at the instance of the Revenue is whether the amount recovered by an assessee on account of erection, testing, design, installation etc.will from part of the assessable value. It is settled proposition of law that expenditure incurred on erection, testing, design, installation etc. are post-manufacturing expenses and are not to form part of the assessable value. It is also beyond doubt that the above-mentioned expenses are unconnected with the manufacture of goods vide decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Thermax Surface Coating Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, 1999 (35) RLT 640 (CEGAT) (sic) 2. In view of the law stated by the Supreme Court, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed....

Anant Raj Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC422

1. The appellants are manufacturers of Glazed Ceramic Tiles falling under Tariff Sub-heading 6906.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. They filed price lists/price declarations with the Department under Rule 173C from time to time, wherein they claimed deductions of quantity discount, cash discount and trade discount from depot sale price. On scrutiny of their RT.12 returns, the Department found that the appellants had cleared goods for home consumption from factory to duty paid depot and from the depot to buyers in different zones during the period November 1996 to November 1997. Three show cause notices (SCNs) were issues by the Department to the appellants for the periods 11 /96 to 3/97,4/97 to 6/97 and 7/97 to 11/97 proposing final assessment on the basis of price charged from customers at depot (by disallowing deduction of discount on the ground that the discount was not passed on to the customers) and also proposing to recover the amounts of Rs. 4,31,170.00, Rs. 13,82,217.00 and Rs....

Chhagan Bhai Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT767TriDel

In this case, the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur had confiscated 50 foreign marked gold biscuits along with vehicle from which they were recovered, and also imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh each on Shri Chhagan Bhai, Shri Mool Chand and penalty of Rs. 25,0007- on Shri Ganesh Bhai vide order-in-original dated 13-2-1996. The Commissioner's order was set aside by the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos.A/1201-1203/97-NB, dated 30-12-1997 under which the applicants were allowed consequential relief. The applicants thereafter moved the Customs authorities for return of the gold biscuits and the vehicle and the amounts of penalty pre-deposited in compliance with the Tribunal's stay order. The present Misc. applications arise as a result of goods etc. not being returned to the applicants.2. The learned DR states that, against the acquittal of the applicants in the prosecution case before the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur for the same offence, the Department has filed a Revision Application...

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Steel Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT570TriDel

1. Facts of the case in brief are that on the basis of checking from the Income-tax department in the factory premises of the appellants on 19.01.1995 and 20.01.1995, an excess of 2.746 MT of MS rounds and shortage of 5.422 MT of M.S. Angles, 11.243 MT of M.S. Gate channels and 0.305 MT of MS Section was detected. According to the department the appellants on their own desposited the duty involved thereon under protest. Accordingly, the offence case was booked by the department for the total shortage of 16.990 MT finished goods and excess quantity of 2.746 MT of MS Round was seized. Show cause notice was issued. Show cause notice was duly answered by the party denying the charges. It was the contention of the party that shortage and excess in stock has been arbitrarily and unjustifiably determined by the Income-tax authorities without carrying out prescribed weighment and ascertained the stock on their own estimate to which they had been forced to agree and sign under threats and coer...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra (Auto) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT835TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether the Motor Vehicle manufactured by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra (Auto) Ltd., is classifiable under Heading 87.02 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned Order or under Heading No. 87.03 of Tariff as claimed by the Revenue.2. Shri D.B. Shraff, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable as it has been filed on completely new grounds which were not taken up before the Collector (Appeals). He submitted that in their classification lists No. 1/91-92, effective from 25.07.1991, they had claimed classification of their product as "Motor Vehicle for the transport of ten or more persons including driver" under Heading 87.02; that the Assistant Collector approved the classification lists which was reviewed by the Collector under section.[sic]E of the Central Excise Act; that an application was filed with the Collector (Appeals) to s...

Prakash Sharma (Deceased) Thr. Smt. Parwati Devi and ors Vs. Delhi Dev ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(1)ARBLR149A(Delhi)

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. Facts in brief giving rise to this appeal preferred against the order passed by learned Single Judge on 24.12.1999, are that with respect to the work of construction of 192 MIG DUs in Pocket A (P), Pitampura, Group III contract was awarded to the claimant. Certain disputes arose amongst the parties. To adjudicate upon the claim of the claimant and the counter claim of the respondent. Shri G.R. Hingorani was appointed as the sole arbitrator by the Engineer Member of the Delhi Development Authority on 27.3.1985. On 20.3.1988 the Arbitrator made and published his award A clarification was also made by the Arbitrator to the award on 26.4.1988. The Award was filed in this Court. The claimant filed objections to the award, which later on were withdrawn by him. No objection was raised by the respondent. Accord- ingly, on 15.12.1988 learned Single Judge made the award rule of court and thus a decree in terms of the award was passed in Suit No. 692-A/98. 2. On 20.4.199...

Jatinder Nath Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi89

ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Father of the petitioner was allotted plot No. 48, Masjid Moth Extension Residential Scheme, now known as Udai Pak. New Delhi-49 in an open auction conducted by the Delhi Development Authority. A lease Deed was executed in his favor by the President of India on 24-7-1973. After the demise of the father of the petitioner the property devolved upon his two sons namely Jatinder Nath, the present petitioner and his brother Narender Nath. Both the brothers applied for mutation with the DDA. Property was mutated in the name of the petitioner and his brother Narender Nath vide letter of respondent dated 22-7-1993.2. It is the case of the petitioner which is not disputed by the respondent that petitioner cleared entire amount and nothing is due from him. On account of oral settlement and out of love and affection both the brothers settled the matter with regard to their property and Narender Nath executed a Relinguishment Deed dated 21-12-1998 duly registered in the o...

N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC332

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. is whether the exemption under Notification No. 5/98-C.E., dated 2-6-1998 is available to the Cellular articles for Conveyance & Packing of articles of plastics classifiable under Subheading 3923.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture Cellular Sheets falling under heading 39.21, Helmet inserts falling under heading 65.01, Styrene Monomer falling under heading 29.02, Polystyrene Beads falling under heading 39.03, Polystyrene Expandable in Powder form and Reclaimed Plastic containers, both falling under heading 39.03 in addition to Cellular articles for the Conveyance or Packing of the articles of plastics; that the appellants availed of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs in respect of all the products other than the impugned goods namely Cellular articles for the Conveyance or Packing; that they claimed exem...

Light Publications Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC664

1. This appeal has come up before us, pursuant to order of reference by the regular Bench, for deciding the correct Tariff classification of the goods viz. "Master Maker 153/168" imported by the appellants under a Special Import Licence dated 28-2-1983. The Revenue classified the item under CTH 90.10 while the assessees wanted it to be classified under CTH 84.35. The referring Bench noted Tribunal's earlier decisions (on classification of goods apparently similar to the item in question) both in favour of and against the Revenue and referred the issue to Larger Bench after opining that it was the intended use of the goods rather than its technique of working that should be the predominant criterion for its classification.2. The appellants had imported the aforesaid goods from the U.S.A. The goods were assessed under Heading No. 90.10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tariff).The importers paid duty accordingly but, later on, filed a ...

M/S. A.M.C. Coated Fabrics (P) Vs. C.C.E., Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture coated cotton fabrics falling under Chapter Heading 5903.19. On 31.5.94, their factory premises was visited by the Central Excise Officers and on physical verification, they noticed as follows: (i) Completely finished coated cotton fabrics measuring 8000 mts. valued at Rs. 2 lakhs were found in the Sample Room. These fabrics were not accounted for. The same were accordingly, seized. (ii) Modvat inputs, namely MEK and ADCL were found short on which the inadmissible credit worked out to Rs. 5,559.60, for which separate proceedings were initiated. (iii) The party was maintaining private record called 'Production Register'. This Register was maintained for accounting the finished goods and the columns therein indicated date of manufacture, quantity manufactured and stored in the finishing room and quantity of goods transferred from the finished stage to RG.1 stage.2. The RG.1 Register was maintained on the basis of entries made in this Production Register. On...