Delhi Court September 1996 Judgments

Ahmedabad Advance Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT709TriDel

1. C/MISC/728/96-B : This Miscellaneous Application for changing the name to Tata SSL Limited was taken up at the outset. In view of the submissions made by the ld. Counsel and no objection from the ld. DR the miscellaneous application is allowed.2. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the ld. Counsel submits that similar issue came up for consideration against the Revenue Appeal on exactly identical issue which was decided by the Tribunal vide its final order No. C/580-581/96-B, dated 6-8-1996. The importer imported hot rolled stainless steel coils. The size of the coils were 3.05 mm.thickness x 460 mm. width into coil. The importer sought clearance in terms of Notification No. 197/83-Cus. as amended. The Assistant Collector denied concession on the ground that "coils for [re-rolling]" as defined in Chapter Note 1(k) to Chapter 73 of the CTA, 1975 should be not less 1.5 mm. in thickness and of width not less than 500 mm.Since width of the strips under assessment was 460 mm. he held th...

Nataraj Organics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT384TriDel

1. This is an application for restoration of appeal dismissed for default due to non-appearance on 1-3-1996.2. Ld. Counsel stated that on that day he was before another Bench of this very tribunal when the matter was called and before he could reach the court of this bench, the matter had been dismissed.3. He would, therefore, request for restoration of the appeal in view of the circumstances mentioned in detail in the written application.5. The appeal is restored to its original number and fixed for hearing on 29th Oct., 1996....

C.C.E. Vs. Vimal Detergent Cakes (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT179TriDel

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri T.R. Malik, SDR for the appellant -Collector and perused the papers.2. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture and sale of detergent cakes. The controversy relates to the includibility in the assessable value of the cost of secondary packing. The Assistant Collector held that the cost of secondary packing should be included but the Collector (Appeals) took a contrary view. Hence the present appeal by the Department.3. The admitted facts are that detergent cakes manufactured by the respondent are initially packed in polythene bags and several such polythene bags are packed in HDPE bags when delivered at the factory gate to buyers or while being sent to outstation customers. Assessable value should be based on the wholesale price at the factory gate and regard must be had to the manner of packing necessary for delivery at the factory gate. It is difficult to accept that when large number of detergent cakes are be...

Carbon and Chemicals India Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT505TriDel

1. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of HAF Carbon Black. Price list in Part-II on the basis of contract entered into between the appellants and the M/s. M.R.F., Kotayam was filed on 12-11-1984 to take effect from 1-11-1984. Price declared was Rs. 14,000/- per metric ton.Price list showed discount of Rs. 700/- per MT was to be given as agreed upon. Price list was received on 12-11-1984 and approved on 29-12-1984 w.e.f. 1-11-1984. During the period 6-11-1984 to 31-12-1984, appellants were paying duty on the value of Rs. 14,000/- per MT and the invoices issued did not give deduction for the discount. Subsequently the appellants filed refund claim alleging that as per practice the discount was not deducted in the invoices, but the discount was paid to the buyer as per credit note dated 2-3-1985 and cheque dated 10-7-1985 issued by the State Bank of Travancore for the discount amount and thus the discount contemplated in the price list had actually been given.The Assistant Collect...

Dawson Electric Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT481TriDel

1. The appellants are manufacturers of electric wires and cables classifiable under Heading 8544.00 of the Central Excise Tariff using inputs like Aluminium and Copper Wire Rods, PVC compound made from duty paid PVC resin. Objection was taken by the departmental officers about their irregular availment of Modvat credit and show cause notice was issued. The Assistant Collector adjudicated the case confirming demand of duty of Rs. 9,54,687.32 under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) partly allowed their appeal by directing the Assistant Collector to consider the admissibility of Notification 198/86 in respect of PVC compound and benefit of notional credit of Rs. 15,271.27 and to give them the opportunity to submit duty paying documents which they claimed to have submitted earlier and grant them relief admissible as per law in the light of these decisions. The Assistant Collector's order was otherwise u...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Leader Engineering Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT557TriDel

1. All these appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh against the Common Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh involve three issues relating to availment of Modvat credit, firstly, the Assistant Commissioner has taken objection to the respondents herein availing of Modvat credit on the basis of duplicate copy of gate passes which the Assistant Commissioner says is not a document prescribed under Rule 57G (2) as evidencing payment of duty on the input. Secondly, the Assistant Commissioner has disallowed deemed Modvat credit that is without production of document evidencing payment of duty in terms of the Government of India order issued for the purpose under Rule 57G (2) on the ground that the inputs in question have been cleared directly from the factory of the manufacturer. Supplier of the input and, therefore, they have been cleared under exemption. Thus, they are recognisable as non-duty paid meriting the disallowance of Modvat cre...

Bhupinder Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. These appeals together with applications for dispensing with the pre- deposit of penalty amount have been filed against adjudication order No. ADJ/253/MHK/AD/B/95, dated 30-12-1995 (despatched on 2-2-1996) under which a penalty of Rs. 15,000 each has been imposed on the appellants for contravention of section 49(1), read with section 7, by invoking the provisions of section 68(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). A penalty of Rs. 25,000 has been imposed on the Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd. in their trade name Central Cottage Industries Emporium. However, the Central Cottage Industries Emporium is not an appellant before the Board. 2. It is not disputed that at the relevant time, the first appellant was the manager and the second appellant the cashier, both working in their respective capacity wi09th the Central Cottage Industries Emporium, Bombay. The charge against the Central Cottage Industries Emporium is that it violated the provisi...

Jagat Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT776TriDel

1. M/s Jagat Steels Pvt. Ltd., Khanna (Ludhiana), had received iron and steel scrap from the open market during the period November, 1986 to March, 1987 and availed of the deemed Modvat credit thereon at the rate of Rs. 365/- per M.T. under Ministry's order dated 7-4-1986 issued from file No. B-22/5/86-TRU. It was alleged vide show cause notice dated 27-5-1987 that the scrap received from the open market by M/s. Jagat Steel Pvt. Ltd. was clearly recognisable as non-duty paid and the deemed Modvat credit was not admissible as per the conditions laid down in the Ministry's order dated 7-4-1986 aforesaid. The assessee had not produced any evidence of payment of duty on the scrap in question. It was their plea that no such proof of payment of duty was required. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patiala, who adjudicated the matter held that the deemed Modvat credit was not admissible on the scrap received from the open market without proof of payment of duty by the assessee during...

Padma Packages Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT732TriDel

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was admissible to the appellants.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of co-extruded polyethylene film for packing milk. The product was exempt by Notification No. 231/82, dated 23-10-1982 and was classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. With the introduction of the new Tariff, the appellants filed a classification list claiming classification of the product under sub-heading 3922.90 and also at the same time claiming the benefit of Notification 132/86. This classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector. The appellants applied for refund of Rs. 3,03,129.04 and the refund was sanctioned except for an amount of Rs. 55,676.76. This order of sanction of refund was reviewed by the Collector and an appeal was filed with the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) held that the product was...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bhiwani Textiles Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT396TriDel

1. Appellant filed a price list for a particular period which was approved and clearances were made accordingly. For a subsequent period, appellant submitted a revised price list lowering the price and pending approval, cleared goods paying excise duty computed on the lower price.Assistant Collector issued notice to the appellant to show cause why differential duty should not be recovered and penalty should not be imposed. Appellant resisted the notice, but the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand of differential duty and imposed penalty of Rs. 500.00. This order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) in appeal on the ground that the demand was time-barred. This order is being challenged by the Department.2. We find that the reason which weighed with the Collector (Appeals) may not be justifiable, but for another reason, the order has to be confirmed. Though at the time of clearance, the revised price list had not been approved, it was approved subsequently. That being so, there...