Delhi Court November 1997 Judgments

Benara Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT225TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Allahabad dated 3-1-1994/4-1-1994.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturer of Plain Shaft Bearings and Bimetal Strips falling under sub-heading 8483.00 and 7212.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were availing Modvat facility after filing the proper declaration under Rule 57G. The appellants were also availing deemed credit on the inputs i.e.lead alloy, copper scrap, copper ingots wire bars, and aluminium scrap purchased from the open market. They received two show cause notices proposing denial of deemed credit on the ground that the deemed credit on various types of metal scrap is not available to the appellants w.e.f. 11-9-1990. It was alleged that such scrap is not generated due to conscious manufacturing activities in the factory of production and are therefore clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. It is submitted that the deemed credit is permissible to the appellants in term...

Ganga Nagar Sehakari Spinning Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT223TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), New Delhi dated 12-11-1991.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants is a unit under Co-operative sectorof the State Government and the Department of Public Enterprises, engaged in the spinning of cotton yarn. Central Excise officers visited the appellant's factory on 20-3-1989 and conducted various checks and verifications of the cotton yarn lying in the bonded store-room. No discrepancy, whatsoever was found, the officers again visited the factory on 23rd and 24th of March, 1989 and verified the cotton yarn lying in loose condition in the finishing room. As a result of verification, yarn of various counts was allegedly found short to the tune of 36,803.130 kgs. and yarn of various counts was allegedly found in excess to the tune of 21,076.150, as per the inventories drawn on the spot. The excess yarn found was seized by the officers vide panchnama dated 24-3-1990. A show cause notice dated 14-6-1989 was issued. The appel...

K.S. and Sons Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT255TriDel

1. This appeal arises from order-in-original, dated 31-10-1989 passed by Addl. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi informing the duty demand of Rs. 3,57,094.50 and also imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellants have manufactured forged products and had cleared the same under Heading 7208.00 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 208/83 or 90/88 or 202/88 which grants exemption to final products falling under Heading 7208.00, which are manufactured for inputs falling under Heading 7207.20 and 7209.90. It is contended by the appellants that the same is correctly classifiable under Heading 7208.00 as the item are "pieces roughly shaped" and they are manufactured from bars, rods and billets falling under the description of the inputs in S. No. 2 of the said notifications and that the items are not classifiable as 'articles of iron & steel' falling under Heading 7209.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as the items have not required the characteristics of t...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC194Tri(Delhi)

1. The appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh challenging Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) whereby she had allowed the appeal filed before her by the present respondents against the Order-in-Original passed by the Dy. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. By the said Order-in-original, the Dy. Collector had demanded the central excise duty of Rs. 2,30,000.00 besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the present respondents.2. The said decision had been taken by the Dy. Collector on the ground that they had manufactured 250 MTS of steel ingots from iron and steel scrap which had not been accounted for in the statutory records. When the decision was challenged before the Collector (Appeals), that authority observed that there was no corroborative evidence to support the alleged shortage and that the departmental officers on cross-examination at the adjudication stage, had admitted that only visual assessment o...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Spun Tubes Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT52TriDel

1. The appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad holding the present respondents to be eligible for Modvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by the dealers from whom they had purchased their input material, namely, H.R. coils. The Assistant Collector had held against them and disallowed Modvat credit and confirmed duty demand as a consequence amounting to Rs. 2,88,703.00 on the ground that they had taken such credit on the strength of invoices issued by certain dealers, who had not been appointed as authorised dealers or distributors of Steel Authority of India who are the manufacturers of the subject goods. This order was reversed by the Collector (Appeals), who found the case to be in conformity with the requirements of Notification 15/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 read with Section 2(k) of CESA, 1944 regarding the identity of wholesale dealer. In the present appeal, the...

Gallium Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT96TriDel

1. The appellants in this case 17/981 were availing of the invoice price facility for assessment in terms of Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The department found that during the year 1987-88 and 1988-89, the assessees had collected a total of Rs. 24,20,000/- from their customers by way of separate debit'notes. On enquiry, the assessees revealed that these charges were collected on the following counts :- 2. A show cause notice was issued on 26-2-1990 alleging suppression of facts demanding total duty of Rs. 3,81,150/- and seeking to impose penalty on the assessees. The Additional Collector after hearing the assessees passed the impugned order confirming the duty as demanded and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence the present appeal.3. Shri D.K. Tyagi, Advocate arguing for the appellants claimed that the demand confirmed was hit by limitation since there was no suppression of any facts. Referring to the department's instructions, he claimed that the debit no...

Sarabhai Electronics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT579TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Sarabhai Electronics Ltd. (ORG Systems Division), the matter relates to the eligibility of the Winchester Disk Drives (hereinafter referred to as 'WDD') imported to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 204/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, as amended. On importation, the appellants claimed that the WDD imported were those which had been earlier exported for repairs and that the customs duty in terms of the aforesaid Notification No. 204/76-Cus. was leviable only on the fair cost of repairs, insurance and freight charges both ways. The goods were examined and it was found that the goods imported did not tally with the goods said to have been sent for repairs to M/s.Seagate Technology International, Singapore (hereinafter referred to as 'STI')- The matter was adjudicated by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Hyderabad, who observed that the goods imported were new goods and that they did not tally with the description as given in the shipping bills under which ...

Krishna Exports Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - This appeal together with application for waiver of pre-deposit has been filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ. 229-B/SDE/PKA/96, dated 20-12-1996 under which a penalty of Rs. seven lakhs has been imposed on Shri Mohan S. Sadhwani the partner of the appellant firm. The allegations on which the appellants have been found guilty of contravention of sections 18(2) and 18(3) read with section 68(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (The Act), respec-tively, are that they failed to receive in India the full value of exports (aggregating to US $. 47224.62) made under the cover of 5 GRI forms as listed in the Annexure to the show-cause notice dated 14-2-1996. 2. Pleading waiver of pre-deposit Shri Rakesh Sharma, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants application for writing off was already pending active consideration of the Reserve Bank of India when the adjudication proceedings were initiated and evidence to that effect ...

Technocraft Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT772TriDel

1. The above appeals involve common issues of classification of certain, items such as flanges, bungs and gaskets (drum closures) and tagrings (disputed products in Appeal No. E/1402/89-B1) and steel flanges, steel plugs, zinc plugs, screw nozzles, screw caps, tagrings and inner seals (disputed items in Appeal Nos. E/2767 -2768/89-B1) and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The assessees seek classification of these items as parts and accessories under sub-heading 8309.90 while the Revenue has upheld classification as parts of containers of base metal under sub-heading 8312.12 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In Appeal No. E/1402/89-B1, the appellants had filed classification lists effective from 1-3-1986 and 2-4-1986 under sub-heading 8309.90 for the items in dispute which were approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. However, a show cause notice was issued on 4-6-1987 proposing reclassification of the items in dispute...

Cotton Products of India Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT100TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of Surgical Cotton wool I.P. which prior to the introduction of the new Tariff, was classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 55/75 and Notification No. 234/82. After introduction of the new Tariff, the item fell for classification under sub-heading 3004.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants obtained a Central Excise licence on 26-5-1996 under the directions of the department and in the classification list filed by them, they claimed the benefit of Notification 175/86 (SSI Unit). The appellants also addressed a letter to the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur claiming that the product manufactured by them namely Surgical Absorbent Cotton wool may be treated as exempted from payment of duty.2. On 20-10-1986, the Superintendent of Central Excise wrote to the appellants pointing out that Absorbent Cott...