Delhi Court December 2002 Judgments

Cce Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC544

1. Heard both the sides. The Revenue has filed these appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the benefit of Modvat credit was denied to the respondents on the ground that credit was availed after six months from the date of issuance of the invoices.The contention of the Revenue is that credit can be taken by a manufacturer within six months from the date of the invoice.2. The contention of the respondents is that with effect from 29.6.1995, the Central Excise Rules were amended whereby the condition was imposed that credit can be taken within six months from the date of invoices and this notification is prospective in nature. The respondents relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITI v. CCE, Allahabad Final Order No. 2182/2000-NB (SM) dated 13.11.2000 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Indore 2002 (81) ECC 465 (SC): 2002 (142) ELT 5 SC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Osram S...

Rubicon Steels Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC210

1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Rubicon Steels, is whether the activities undertaken by them amounts to manufacture so as to make the products exigible to Excise duty.2.1 Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the fabrication of certain parts out of the materials received from Railway Coach Factory (RCF); that the activities undertaken by them are basically in the nature of punching and bending; that at the time of supply of fabricated items, they paid excise duty on the process/jobwork charges though the activity undertaken by them did not amount to manufacture; that on account of bona fide belief they did not include the value of the materials supplied by RCF in the assessable value and availed of the benefit of SSI exemption Notification; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order, has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed equivalent amount of penalty holding that after the process of punching, welding and ben...

Goodearth Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT284TriDel

1. M/s. Goodearth Steels Pvt. Ltd. have filed this Appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 8/Commr/Tech/2002, dated 6-5-2002 which has been passed by the Commissioner on remand from the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/659/2000-NB (DB), dated 2-8-2000.2. Shri K.C. Dhawan, learned Company Secretary of the appellants submitted that the appellants manufacture M.S. Ingots and Billets; that under their letter dated 3-7-98, they had sought permission of the Commissioner to modify the capacity of their induction furnace from 4 MT to 3 MT; that the Commissioner permitted them to change the installed capacity subject to the condition that they would inform the change of furnace capacity to the Commissioner within 24 hours of change; that modified furnace capacity which became operational from 20-8-1998 was informed to the Department same day; that the Department verified the parameters of furnace on 28-8-1998 and found the same as per the dimensional drawing furnished by the Engineer...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ranutrol Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC764

1. This is an application for rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 111-112/2000-B dated 11.3.2002.2. Shri A. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that in Para 3 of the Final Order, it has been recorded by the Tribunal that the learned Advocate for the Appellants also mentioned that even the Customs Department had clarified to them on inquiry that the impugned goods are classifiable under Heading 76.15; that Director General of Foreign Trade had also classified the impugned product under the said Heading.He, further, mentioned that this recording is an error as the Customs Department and DGFT had clarified to the Appellants' query that the impugned goods were classifiable under Heading 94.06 which is apparent from DGFTs' Letter dated 9.4.99 and Commissioner of Customs New Delhi's letter dated 7.1.99. We also heard Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative.3. It is seen from the letter dated 9.4.99 of DGFT and letter dated 7.1.99 of Customs Department t...

Chandni International Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC203

1. M/s. Chandni International have challenged in this appeal the Order-in-Original No. 267/CAC/Commissioner of Customs-MCT, dated 20-8-2001 by which Commissioner of Customs has enhanced the value of certain models of musical instruments, confiscated the same and imposed penalty under the Customs Act.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants, trading in imported musical instruments, negotiated verbally a deal with M/s. Sumbee Inhdah Pvt. Ltd., Singapore for seven containers of musical instruments; that the first container arrived in December, 1998 for which Bill of Entry was filed by them on 29-12-98 declaring value Singapore $ 28394.50 and the country of origin was shown as Malaysia; that the Commissioner has dropped the charge of under valuation in respect of Model Nos. PSR 520, PSR 78 and PSS 9; that in respect of remaining Models the value has been enhanced to Rs. 27.15 lakhs as against Rs. 6.52 lakhs; that Commissioner has also confiscated the said mode...

Jai Prakash Saini Vs. Director, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Rese ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The complainant, Shri Jai Prakash Saini, has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring therein that the complainant, an ex-serviceman, re-employed with the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi as a Clerk-cum-Coin Note Examiner, in August, 1997 suffered stomach ailment, consulted the Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi, for treatment, who, after examining the complainant, gave treatment which provided only temporary relief to the complainant and gradually two glands on the neck and one gland on the left side of the face of the complainant appeared. The Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, under whose treatment the complainant was, after a few days of medication advised the complainant to consult some surgical specialist. On the advice of the Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, the complainant approached the doctor at the Armed Forces C...

Narang Scientific Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC777

1. The common issue involved in all these appeals, filed by M/s. Narang Scientific Works Pvt. Ltd., is whether the "BOD Incubators" are classifiable under Heading 84.36 and "Other Incubators" under Heading 90.18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as claimed by them or under Heading 84.19 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).Appeal has also been filed by Revenue against treating the price as cum-duty price.2. Shri R. Swaminathan, learned Consultant, submitted that BOD Incubators stand for Bio Chemical Oxygen demand and are used for studying and testing of culture of bacteria, etc.; that Other Incubators are used by medical practitioners for pathological purposes; that Heading 84.19 covers items that are used for mere treatment of materials by a process of involving a change in temperature; that the said Heading does not cover such of those machinery etc. that performs functions which extend beyond the treatment of materials; that the impugned equipment is only prov...

Katni Minerals (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc and Ce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC435

1. M/s. Katni Minerals Ltd. have filed this Appeal against the Order-in-Review No. 18/ST/Commr/2001 dated 24.12.2001 by which the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise in exercise of powers under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 has confirmed the demand of Sales Tax and imposed penalty.2. We heard Shri B.L Narsimhan, learned Advocate for the appellants, and Shri Vikas Kumar, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative for the Revenue. The learned Advocate submitted that initially a show cause notice dated 29.3.98 was issued to them to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed upon them under the Provisions of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for not filing of the Service Tax returns; that the Deputy Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 18/99 dated 27.12.99 dropped the proceedings against them in terms of the judgment in Laghu Udyog Bharti v. Union of India, 1999 (65) ECC 687 (SC) : 1999 (33) RLT 911 (SC) under which the Supreme Court had struck down the provi...

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Vs. Cc (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC549

1. The issue raised in this appeal at the instance of the importer is whether they are entitled to claim exemption from Customs duty under Notification No. 11/97 dated 1.3.97 in respect of 120 MT AC-395 Demag Crane imported under Bill of Entry dated 13.8.98 under the provisions of the Project Import Regulations, 1986.2. The appellant was granted a letter of Intent by the Government of India on 16.1.84 to put up a natural gas based fertilizer plant. In order to erect the manufacturing unit, the appellant had to import plant and machinery from abroad. Import of such items of machinery was covered by Chapter 98, Heading 98.01 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The assessment and clearance of the items of machinery were governed by the Project Imports Regulations, 1986 framed under Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. After commissioning of the first plant the appellant undertook an expansion project titled as Gadepan-II Fertilizer Plant. One of the equipments requi...

Ashok Kumar Vs. Additional Dy. Commissioner of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ181CAT

1. The present O.A. was earlier disposed of vide Tribunal's order dated 2.5.2000. Thereafter the applicant had filed writ petition No.4246/2000 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was disposed of vide Hon'ble High Court's order dated 17.9.2001. The relevant portion of the Hon'ble High Court's order reads as follows:- "Petitioner and his colleague Jitender Pal Singh, both Constables in Delhi Police were dismissed from service allegedly for extorting money from one person. It is claimed that this was done pursuant to a joint Enquiry. Both files O.As. before Tribunal against this taking the plea that non-supply of preliminary report had prejudiced their defence in reference to Rule 15(3) of Delhi Police (P&A) Rules 1980. Tribunal allowed O.A. 1406/96 of Jitender Pal but dismissed O.A. 2021/96 of petitioner. Hence this petition. We have examined both orders and we find that Tribunal had drawn distinction in petitioner's O.A. on noticing that he had not demanded Preliminary En...