Delhi Court May 2004 Judgments

Rpg Itochu Finance Ltd. and Others Vs. Ramesh Chand and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 9.2.2004 passed by District Forum Janak Puri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 461/2003 entitled Shri Ramesh Chand v. Shri Deepak Jain and Ors. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that the respondent had entered into a hire purchase agreement dated 21.5.1998 with the appellant for the finance of a Maruti Van. In terms of the said agreement the finance amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- was advanced to the respondent by the appellant to be repaid in 38 instalments of Rs. 4,936/- each. The respondent handed over advance cheques for the same and the payment of 29 such instalments were encashed by the appellant whereas two instalments were paid in cash to Sh. Satish Kumar, representative of the O.P. on 30.10.2000 for which receipt was to be given after the payment of another Rs. 2,000/-. However, despite having paid the instalments due the appellant No. 1 forcefully took away the vehicle bearing No. DL-8C-2126 ...

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT30TriDel

1. The duty demand is based on the finding that the appellant has clandestinely manufactured and removed TV sets. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the finding flows merely from the fact that the appellant had consumed more picture tube's than the colour TV sets produced, the data having been taken from the balancesheet. There is no evidence at all indicating clandestine production or removal. It is the appellant's explanation that the higher consumption of picture tube is on account of breakage/loss of picture tube and not on account of any clandestine production of TV sets. The learned Counsel also points out that the waste/loss is within the normal limits.2. There is merit in the appellants' explanation. Pre-deposits are not warranted, they are waived and recovery of any amount stayed. Appeal to come up for hearing on 12th July, 2004....

Jubilant Organosys Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC393

1. When the stay application came up for hearing, learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the issue raised in the appeal remains settled in favour of the assessee under the order of this Tribunal and that order has been confirmed also by the Apex Court. In view of this legal position, the appeal itself was taken up for consideration, after dispensing with the requirement for pre-deposit of duty and penalty.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of Glycol, Surfactants, Fusel Oil, Plymeg and H.S Alcohol. The appellant's main input is molasses. A small percentage of molasses brought in to the appellant's factory and stored in the tanks get lost on account of natural reasons (evaporation).Under the impugned order, the Central Excise authorities have held that quantities of molasses so lost are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and therefore, no modvat credit could be taken "on those quantities. Accordingly, duty demand had been confirmed.3. The submissio...

L.M. Glasfibre (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC179

1. In this appeal at the instance of the Importer the issue that has come up for consideration is whether total lump sum fee of 7.5 million DKK for transfer of production know-how related to manufacture of rotor blades of wind mills is to be added to the value of the imported goods under Rule 9(1)(c) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Appellant is a joint venture company formed by three joint ventures, namely, M/s. L.M.Glasfibre A/S (LMG) Denmark, the Industrialization Fund for Developing Countries (IFU) Denmark and NEPC Micon Limited. Initially the shareholding was in the ratio of 45% : 39% : 16%. With effect from 19.6.2002 LMG acquired 100% of the shareholdings of the appellant company with the approval of FIPB Authorities.2. Appellant company was formed with the objective of manufacturing blades for wind turbine generators. They entered into three separate agreements with LMG on the following terms:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------S....

Star Wire India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC209

1. This is an application for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order No. 848/2003-B dated 12.11.2003 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has held vide Final Order dated 12.11.2003 that the Applicants are liable to pay Central Excise duty on High Aluminium Fire Clay Grog and Chrom Magnesite Grog under Heading 69.01 of the Tariff, that the Appeal was argued before the Tribunal on 17.7.2003 and the order was reserved; that subsequently the applicant came across a decision in the case of Vasavadatta Cement v. CCE, 2003 (157) ELT 272 wherein it has been held that waste and scrap of refractory material is not classifiable under Chapter 69 being not specified thereunder; that the said decision was sent to the Deputy Registrar for being placed before the Bench; that in view of the said decision there is an apparent mistake on the face of the record while passing the Final Order.3. Opposing the prayer, M/s. Charul Barnwal, learned Senior Depar...

Cce Vs. East India Udyog Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC707Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by Revenue is whether HV/LV coils used by the M/s. East India Udyog Ltd. in repair of damaged transformers are chargeable to Central Excise Duty.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Respondent inspite of notice nor was there any request for adjournment We, therefore, heard Shri H C Verma, learned Departmental Representative, and perused the records.3. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the respondents undertook the repair of damaged transformers; that they use HV/LV coils to repair damaged transformers; that the duty is payable on these coils as they have manufactured the same and used captively in the factory; that they are paying duty on such coils in repair of transformers belonging to other electricity boards, which goes to show that these coils are liable to Central Excise duty; that the decisions relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) to hold that the impugned coils are not relevant becau...

Patel Widecom India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (icd)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT16TriDel

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common impugned order-in-original vide which the Commissioner of Customs has affirmed duty of Rs. 6,61,717/-, Rs. 9609/- and Rs. 4,77,588/- under the Customs Act with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and Rs. 3 lakhs under Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules against the company appellant No. 1.He has also imposed separate penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules on its Director appellant No 2.2. The learned Counsel has contended that duty has been wrongly confirmed against the appellants as part of the goods i.e. 4 out of 11 Scanners allegedly removed by the company appellant No. 1 for the purpose of demonstration after following the due procedure, were brought back to the factory and this aspect has been wrongly ignored by the Commissioner. He has also contended that goods allegedly ...

Eicher Tractors and anr. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC709Tri(Delhi)

1. Both these appeals involve a common issue. Therefore, they were taken up together for consideration and are disposed of under this common order.2. The appellant received various inputs for the manufacture of final product. They take duty credit (CENVAT Scheme) in respect of such inputs. At times, the inputs are removed as such i.e. without subjecting them to any manufacturing process. Issue arose as to what is the appellant's liability in such cases. The appellant contended that they were not required to make any fresh assessment of the inputs so cleared. They were only required to reverse the credit taken in respect of such inputs. Under the impugned orders it was held that the inputs cleared as such should be subjected to the process of assessment and appropriate duty paid. Consequently, differential duty demand has also been raised.3. The appellants contend in these appeals that the impugned orders are contrary to the settled law. Learned Counsel for the appellant took us throug...

Gail (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT501TriDel

1. When find that application for stay came up for hearing, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of since the issue raised herein is already covered in favour of the appellants by the decision of this Tribunal and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.2. The dispute that has come-up for consideration is whether lean gas has to be classified under Tariff Heading 2711.29 as proposed by the Revenue or whether it would come under 2711.21 as claimed by the appellants. The very same issue has come-up for consideration by this Tribunal in Oil India Ltd. Vs. CCE (2002(51) RLT 1030).3. In the above decision. the Tribunal has taken the view that since lean gas has to be treated as natural gas it has to come under 2711.21 and not under Heading 2711.29. The matter was taken in appeal by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. By order dated 7th February, 2003, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Civil appeal both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.4. Ld. Counsel for the appel...

Neg Micon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT29TriDel

1. In this appeal at the instance of the importer, challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30-4-2003. The issue arising for consideration is whether licence fee of 2,60,000 DKK payable by the appellant on each Wind Turbine Generator (WTG for short) produced in India is liable to be added to the value of components/parts imported from the collaborator in terms of Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. There is also an issue as to whether service fee of 6000 DKK payable by the appellant to the collaborator for deploying technical assistance by competent personnel for servicing the WTG under annual maintenance contract is liable to be added to the value of imported parts/components under Rule 9(1)(c). The Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 12-2-2001 wherein he has held that licence fee and service fee shall be added to the transaction value as per Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988.Appeal filed by the assessee was al...