Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 14 of about 203 results (0.017 seconds)Pratibha Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC262Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No.9/Commissioner/MP/97/ dated 28-2-1997 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur confirming duty demand of Rs. 25,02,818.24, Rs. 72,454.65 and Rs. 37,255.45 covered under three show cause notices imposing penalty amounts of Rs. 5 lakhs on appellant M/s. Pratibha Chemicals (P) Ltd., Kanpur (PCPL, for short) besides imposing penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. Carona Cosmetics and Chemicals Ltd., Kanpur (CCCL for short) and Rs. One lakh on Shri P.A. Kharwadkar, Managing Director of PCPL and Rs. 50,000/- on Shrimati P.P. Kharwadkar. The penalty on PCPL was imposed under Rule 173 Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules, for short) and on the others under Rule 209A of the Rules.The duty demand related to the period September 1989 to December 1994 and the show cause notices were dated 30-9-1994,25-10-1994 and 21-3-1995. The first notice covering the period September 89 to March 94 for a sum of Rs. 25,02,818.24 invoked the provision ...
Tag this Judgment!Triveni Engg. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT427TriDel
1. The single issue for determination in this case is whether Soda ash and Caustic soda used for cleaning of various machinery were eligible inputs in the manufacture of sugar or not.2. I find that this issue has been settled earlier in favour of the asessees. Caustic soda flakes used for descaling of the brass tube in a sugar factory were held eligible inputs in the Tribunal judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd., reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 507 (Tribunal) which was followed in the case of Rajasthan State Ganga Nagar Sugar Mills v. C.C.E., Jaipur, reported in 1998 (28) RLT 281 (CEGAT).3. The eligibility of caustic soda were examined in depth by the Tribunal in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur [Final Order No. A/393/98-NB(S)] dated 16-4-1998 as follows :- "Caustic soda is used for three purposes. The first purpose for demineralisation of boiler feed water which is converted into steam which...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Krishna Keshav Laboratories Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC108Tri(Delhi)
1. Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common order because the impugned order is also common and the issues involved are common.2.1 Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of evacuated containers for which they filed a classification list (Cl) under sub-heading 9617.00 chargeable to nil rate of duty which was duly approved.Consequent to the budgetary changes of 1990 they filed a revised Cl No.1/90-91 under Heading 96.17 claiming full exemption under Notification No. 83/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990.2.2 A show cause notice dated 19-6-1990 was, however, issued to them proposing modification. The Assistant Collector vide his order-in-original dated 16-4-1991 has held that the process carried out by the appellants amounts to manufacture and the product is appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 7012.90 described as "laboratory, hygienic or pharmaceutical glassware, whether or not graduated or calibrated". In the meantime, three show cause notices dated 4-5-1990, 1-11-1990 and...
Tag this Judgment!V. Pla Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT194TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed against the order-in-original dated 30-4-1991 passed by the Addl. Collector, Central Excise, Pune.alia, that they are a manufacturer of plastic articles and were availing the exemption under Notification No. 53/88-C.E., dated 18th March, 1988. Since all articles manufactured by the appellants were of plastic and exempt from duty they were not required to take out L-4 licence and follow the procedure prescribed in the Central Excise Rules.4. M/s Sandvik Asia Ltd. purchased wrenches called Allen Keys from M/s.Kohinoor Engineers, Pune who were the authorised dealers. The duty on these wrenches which are high tensile screw drivers was paid under sub- heading No. 8204.00.5. These duty paid wrenches were sent to the appellants who fixed a plastic moulding to facilitate easier handling. During the process of this, HDEP moulding, the trade mark of M/s Sandvik Asia Ltd. was also embossed on these handles.6. They have further submitted that M/s. Sandvik Asia Ltd., sup...
Tag this Judgment!Printwell Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC355Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals filed by (i) M/s. Printwell Industries and (ii) M/s. Hindustani Art Cottage. Since the issue involved in both the cases was the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common Order. The appellants are engaged in a printing industry.They imported one Vacuumatic Paper Counting Machine Model "Viscount 200" complete with standard accessories etc. Bills of Entry were filed claiming the assessment of the said Paper Counting Machine under Heading No. 84.35 of the Customs Tariff Schedule attracting duty @40% (Basic) plus 25% (Auxiliary) plus 12% (Additional) under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Group-H, Custom House, Bombay vide his Order-in-Assessment, dated 7-2-1986 rejected the appellants' claim under Heading 84.35 as ancillary to printing machine on the ground that the said machine does not assist or take part in the process of printing and merely counts the papers.Hence the same cannot be considered...
Tag this Judgment!Clover Finance and Comml. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT92TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the Order dated 7-1-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals). The appellants have sent a letter dated 30-9-1997 in which they have requested, inter alia, that the appeal may be decided on the basis of the submissions made in the memo of appeal and Board's Circular referred to therein.2. Accordingly, we have gone through the records and heard the learned JDR. Learned JDR stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Tele-printer rolls, telex rolls and other computer stationery. The issue involved in the appeal is the classification of computer stationary, i.e. whether it falls under 4823.90 as held by the Assistant Commissioner or under 4820 as claimed by the appellants.2.1 He submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has observed that manifold business forms in the HSN have been described as under : "These are multipart form sets either printed on self copy paper or interleaved with carbon paper. These forms ...
Tag this Judgment!Parke-davis (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT675TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Original No. 194/91, dated 27-11-1991 passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Bombay-II 2. The appellants vide their letter dated 30th Sept. 1997 have requested that their case may be decided on merits.3. As per the appeal memo., the appellants were engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of various Patent or Proprietary Medicines falling under Chapter Heading No. 3003.4. They were drawing control samples for the purpose of quality control during the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 and were availing the benefit of Notification No. 171/70-C.E., dated 21-11-1970 (as amended).They were entitled to clear samples without payment of duty upto 1% of the value of the duty paid clearances during the preceding months of all the medicaments, subject to the conditions laid down in the said notification. However, they were issued a show-cause notice dated 13-2-1991 alleging, inter alia, that they had cleared control s...
Tag this Judgment!Uni-aire (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT474TriDel
1. This appeal of Uni-aire (P) Ltd. is directed against adjudication Order No. 35/91, dated 23-10-1991 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi demanding Central Excise duty of over Rs. 70 lacs and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lacs on the appellant. The demand is on account of the treating the following items as part of condensor and cooling coils which were liable to duty under Notification No. 80/62.The items are:- 2. Under Notification No. 80/62 all parts of refrigerating appliances and machinery other than the parts mentioned in the notification were exempted for payment of duty. Condensor and cooling coils were two of the items which were not exempted.3. Arguing the appeal, learned Counsel Shri V. Sridharan submitted that the items in question were separate goods from dutiable parts as specified in the notification. They were not parts or components of condensers or cooling coils. He submitted that these are accessories which make airconditioning system functional; but are sep...
Tag this Judgment!Mehta Chem Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT194TriDel
1. The classification of two products viz. Boroquein Prickly Heat Powder and Boroquein Antiseptic Perfumed cream, manufactured by the appellants herein, arises for determination in this appeal preferred against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.According to the appellants, both products are ayurvedic medicines falling for classification under T.I. 68 for the period prior to 28-2-1986 and under CET sub-heading 3003.30 for the period subsequent thereto, as ayurvedic medicines and exempt from the whole of the duty in terms of Notification 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982 prior to 28-2-1986, and attracting nil rate of duty under CET sub-heading 3003.30, while according to the Revenue, the products fall for classification under T.I. 14F of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff for the period up to 28-2-1986 and under CET sub-heading 3304.00 for the subsequent period, as preparations for care of the skin.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of t...
Tag this Judgment!Escorts Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT245TriDel
1. The captioned Stay Petition was filed by the Applicants requesting for waiving of pre-deposit of duty.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Applicants have 2 Units. They were procuring certain inputs for manufacture of Hydraulic Assemblies and other final products. The disputed item before us is Hydraulic Assemblies. The Hydraulic Assemblies were being disposed of in 3 different ways. They were partly being cleared for use in Tractors. Tractors, upto a certain Horse Power were exempt. When these Hydraulic Assemblies were being used for manufacture of this type of Tractors, the Modvat credit taken on the inputs used in the manufacture of Hydraulic Assemblies was being reversed. In the second scenario, some Hydraulic Assemblies were being cleared on payment of duty out of the credit taken on the inputs. The third category was of Hydraulic Assemblies being transferred to their other unit in the same town under Chapter X procedure. The Department alleged that the transfer of...
Tag this Judgment!