Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1997 Page 21 of about 214 results (0.030 seconds)Ganga Vanaspati Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT84TriDel
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. There is no representation and no request for adjournment. We have heard Shri M.Ali, JDR for respondent and perused the papers.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of vegetable products was availing rebate of duty on rice bran oil used in the manufacture of vegetable products at various rates prescribed from time to time. It was discovered subsequently that while appellant was paying Government excise duty deducting the amount of rebate availed and was recovering duty at the effective rate from the buyers and the benefit of rebate was not being passed on. Show cause notice was, therefore, issued proposing to include the amount of rebate in the assessable value and redetermine the value and duty and demanding differential duty. Though the notice was resisted, the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, confirmed the demand. Hence the present appeal.3. The Tribunal has been consistently following the view taken in SLP No. 4515/1977, ...
Tag this Judgment!Telemecanique and Controls (i) Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT366TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.115/CE/MRT/97 dated 27-1-1997. In this case the benefit of Modvat credit on the inputs is denied on the ground that appellant has not filed proper declaration of inputs under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant has filed a declaration on 2nd March, 1986 and in the declaration he gave the heading and sub-heading and description of the goods. He submits that the Commissioner of Central Excise in the order wrongly held that proper declaration of inputs was not filed. He submits that inputs were broadly described and specific sub-heading of the Tariff was given in the declaration and the inputs were received under the proper duty paying documents and were used in the manufacture of final product. Hence they are entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit.3. Ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in the present case the ...
Tag this Judgment!Telco Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT366TriDel
1. Since the issue is common in these two appeals, these are being taken up together for disposal in the single order.2. The appellants imported oil seals and sought classification under heading 8485.90. They were, however, assessed under sub-heading 4016.93. The importers then filed a refund claim reiterating their plea for classification under 8485.90. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim stating that applying Rule 3(a) of the Rules for interpretation, heading 4016.93 provides the most specific description of the goods and that the classification suggested by the importer was not acceptable. The Collector (Appeals) up-held this classification, resulting in the present appeal being filed before us.4. In the memorandum of appeal, the claim made is that these goods are of specific shape and size designed for fitment into excavators. It was claimed that these were composite articles made of rubber and steel and, therefore, the classification under heading 8485.90 was correc...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Music India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)LC34Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondent, Music India Ltd. had manufactured gramophone records for two customers, M/s. Saraswati Stores and Echo Recording Company using the master tapes provided by the said customers which were returned to them after the records were manufactured and supplied to the said customers. Respondent company was also manufacturing its own records besides manufacturing records as aforesaid for the above mentioned customers. Such records for the said two customers were cleared by the respondent on payment of duty levied on the value thereof which was based on the cost of raw materials provided by the respondent and the charges collected for the job work of manufacture of records and the show cause notices were issued alleging that the customers being the owners of the copyright of the music contents of the master tape and the respondent being required to sell the entire records produced by them using such master tape to the said customers only and not being free to sell them to any o...
Tag this Judgment!Tirubala Leather P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT80TriDel
1. This stay application is filed by the applicants for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 6,40,650.60 and penalty of Rs. one thousand and stay of recovery proceedings.2. Arguing for the applicants, Sh. N. Singh, ld. Advocate for the applicants, submitted that the applicants is a 100% export oriented unit manufacturing footwear liable to Central Excise duty, but fully exempt from payment of Central Excise duty subject to full accounts of entire production. He said that the applicants have claimed remission of duty due to loss which they have suffered due to fire accident in the factory. He said that the applicants submitted an intimation of fire accident after four days of fire when the debris were already cleared and the applicants came to know the loss due to fire accident.He submitted that as per Rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules, applicants were required to give an intimation within 48 hours from the event of destruction or when they came to know the loss. He sa...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Bhatia Importers and Traders Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT705TriDel
1. Appellant imported 1200 Rolls (25 mtrs. per roll) of Hook and Loop Nylon Fastener Tapes (white unbranded) of Taiwan origin from a supplier in Hongkong, M/s. Continental Development & Industrial Co. The appellant's invoice showed the price as US $ 0.55 per roll FOB. When Deputy Collector was investigating the aspect of misdeclaration of value, appellant submitted a letter dated 24-11-1986 requesting for personal hearing. On 21-1-1987 the appellant's gave a letter to the Assistant Collector pointing out the delay in clearance of goods and waiving show cause notice and requesting for necessary action at earliest convenience and for issue of detailed speaking appealable order. On 6-2-1987 Assistant Collector passed the adjudication order determining the value as US $ 0.15 per metr. C & I (US $ 3.75 per roll C & I) and imposing penalty of Rs. 500/- for evasion of Customs duty.This order was confirmed by Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeal.2. Learned Counsel for the...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Govind Ruber (Unit No. 4)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT423TriDel
1. The Revenue had filed these two appeals against Order-in-Appeal Nos.374-75/CE/CHD/94, dated 30-11-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Rubber Tyres of Moped & Bicycles falling under Chapter 40 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they are availing the benefit of Modvat scheme. During the "month of April, 1993 Respondent took Modvat credit of Rs. 1,84,976.76 on the basis of duty demanded and paid by M/s. Bengal Chemotex, Karun Enterprises & M/s.Uttam Enterprises vide Order-in Original No. 1 to 3/CE/ADC/91. The respondent during the period January, 1994 took credit of Rs. 1,96,780/- on the basis of deposit of duty amounting of Rs. 1,91,780/- and Rs. 5,000/- as personal penalty demanded front M/s. Royal Enterprises, Ludhiana vide Order-in-Original 31/CE/90, dated 31-12-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The Respondents a...
Tag this Judgment!Timex Watches Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT743TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of wrist watches. For manufacturing of this item they procure imported as well as indigenous material on payment of duty. The appellants availed the Modvat credit in respect of seven consignments. Out of these 7 consignments six consignments were covered by GP-I. The duty involved on the goods received under these 6 GP-Is amounted to Rs. 1,50,636/-. The 7th consignment was covered by a Bill of Entry wherein the duty involved for purposes of Modvat credit was Rs. 5,56,770/-. The Department alleged that the appellants had taken Modvat credit of duty but were not in a position to produce the originals. The Department observed that Notification No. 6/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10-3-1995 inter alia read as under : "Provided that no credit shall be taken unless the inputs are received in the factory under the cover of an invoice issued under Rule 57A, and AR-I, triplicate copy of a...
Tag this Judgment!Pearl Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT745TriDel
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellants took Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs received from the Depot of M/s. IPCL. The Department alleged that the Depot of M/s. IPCL was not registered and, therefore, the invoices issued by M/s. IPCL were not documents prescribed for taking Modvat credit under Rule 57G. A reference was made to Notification No. 15/94 and No. 32/94. Shri G.Shiv Dass, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants, submits that both the Notifications No. 15/94 and 32/94 prescribed the invoices issued by a manufacturer from his factory or Depot. He submits that there is no allegation that the places from which the appellants purchased the inputs was not a depot of the manufacturer. He submits that Notification Nos. 15/94 and 32/94 speak of invoices issued by manufacturer or his depot or his factory. He submits that the notifications are very clear and unambiguous and, therefore, should have been so interpreted by the lower authorities. The...
Tag this Judgment!Aarkay Plumbing Fixtures Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT364TriDel
1. Appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.127-CE/KAN/95, dated 28-12-1995 in the impugned order the benefit of deem credit order in respect of brass scraps was denied on the ground that the scrap is generated on account of collection of unserviceable household articles, parts/accessories of some machinery/equipment rendered unserviceable as such articles on account of prolonged use/breakage/worn out condition etc. And this scrap is recognisable as non-duty payable.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of taps and cocks falling under sub-heading 8481.80 of the Scheduled of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were availing the benefit of deem input Modvat credit on brass scrap falling under sub-heading No. 7440.00 of the scheduled to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 during the period March, 1993 to July, 1993 the appellants took deem credit of Rs. 1,73,185.38. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 30-9-1993 alleging that t...
Tag this Judgment!