Delhi Court March 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 18 of about 261 results (0.017 seconds)Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rama Metal Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT455TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order No. dated 6-8-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents, however, they have filed written submissions in which it was stated by them that the issue involved in this case has already been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in their own case for the earlier period as per Order No. 3001/97, dated 17-11-1997 [1998 (99) E.L.T. 616 (Tribunal)]. It was also submitted by them that the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has referred to the earlier order in deciding the classification [1989 (40) E.L.T. 472 (Tribunal)], was the subject matter of the dispute in Appeal No. E/152/89-B and same has been decided by the Tribunal as per Order No. 3001/97.3. Shri Nunthuk fairly conceded that the issue has already been decided by the Tribunal and the Collector referred to the earlier Order No.263/88-B, dated 17-9-1988 [1989 (40) E.L....
Tag this Judgment!Borosil Glass Works Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT120TriDel
1. The ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), in the impugned order held that the Rectangular Casseroles would not fit in the definition of bowl as illustrated in the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary. Further he held that the Rectangular casserole is neither a plate nor a bowl and is thus not covered under Notification No. 67/88, dated 1-3-1988. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that the Appellants filed a Classification List and claimed that the item Rectangular Casserole falling under sub-heading 7015.00 is chargeable to duty at a concessional rate in terms of Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 67/88, dated 1-3-1988. The Assistant Collector, after examining the items, observed that the product in question served the purpose of baking and serving both; that they are cooking vessels as well as tableware and that since the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 67/88 is admis...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT111TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Surat, dated 28-6-1990.2. The appellants have stated that they had sent a telegram requesting that the appeal may be decided on merits. Hence, we have gone through the written submissions and heard the ld. DR.3. The appellants have mentioned that they are the manufacturers of Dyes, Dye-intermediates, Chemicals, Bulk drug-intermediates, Chemicals, Bulk drug, drug-intermediates and holds valid licences for the manufacture of finished products. The appellants also manufacture D.C.P. I.P., Urethane, Halazone NF and claimed exemption under Notification No. 62/78, dated 1-3-1978. The classification list Nos.2/78 and 4/78 were filed claiming exemption under Notification No.62/78 which were approved also.4. In the light of test report by the Chemical Examiner, Baroda. The show cause notice was served for the period 1-3-1978 to 29-6-1983 under Section 11A of the Act. The Additional Collector rejected ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector Of C. Ex. Vs. Bakeman'S Home Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)LC420Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh has filed these appeals against a common Order-in-Appeal dated 29-11-1991 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. The common respondent filed Price List Nos. 1 to 14 and 49 of 89-90 and 482/88-89 claiming certain deductions including deduction on account of secondary packing. Show cause notice was issued proposing disallowance of deduction on account of secondary packing and bank charges. Respondent opposed the notice. The Assistant Collector passed a common order allowing deduction of bank charges but disallowing deduction on account of secondary packing charges, holding that cardboard cartons are necessary to pack the biscuits manufactured by the respondent for delivery in wholesale at the factory gate. Collector (Appeals) reversed this decision in regard to one brand, namely, Glucose Biscuits, holding that as a matter of fact glucose biscuits were being sold in wholesale at the factory gate in sizeable quantity onl...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Polymers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC254
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise denying Modvat credit of Rs. 3,52,755/- on certain items which can be broadly categorised as (a) measuring instruments (b) inverter and spares and differential pressure transmitters (c) programmable logic controller (d) regulating devices for maintaining proper atmosphere in the manufacturing process such as pressure gauge, vacuum gauge (e) boiler furnace sheet, fan coil unit and system cable, on the ground that they do not fall within the definition of capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has also been imposed. The period during which the above quantum of credit was availed is August, 1994 to January 1995.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of polyester polymer chips falling under sub-heading 3907.60 of the Schedule to the CET A, 1985. They were availing Modvat credit on the above mentioned items. Proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Film Industries Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT776TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay confirming a duty demand of Rs. 1, 38, 741.88 for the period from 1-4-1977 till 31-3-1981 on hypo solution, silver nitrate solution and silver nitrate crystals obtained during the course of processing of cinematograph films and imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,000.00. They are engaged in the manufacture of exposed cinematograph films, during the course of processing of which hypo solution (sodium thiosulphate solution) is obtained. The hypo solution is, further, processed to obtain silver nitrate solution and silver nitrate crystals. The demand has been raised on these three items, since the department holds that they were excisable goods which had been manufactured without payment of duty thereon.2. Since the appellants have asked for a decision on merits, we have perused the records including the written submissions and heard the ld.DR, Shri H.K. Jain.3. The contention of the appellants th...
Tag this Judgment!Hans Castings Private Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT139TriDel
1. All the 3 captioned appeals were taken up together as the basic issue in all these appeals was the same, with slight deviation, and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The basic issue in all these appeals is whether power consumed can be the factor for determining the production of ingots and what should be the basis for determining the power consumption.3. The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots. They were procuring raw materials from the market. The Department had an information that the appellants were not showing the actual production in their statutory records. Therefore, investigations started. The adjudicating authority mainly took into account the power consumption as the factor for determining :he production of ingots in each of the units. He had before him the technical iterature which indicated that the manufacturer's specification for the type of Unit (Furnace) used by the Appellants for consumption of power was in the region of 650 Units...
Tag this Judgment!L. Kant Paper Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC205
1. This appeal has been filed against the Order confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 22,67,723.81 and penalty of Rs. 50.00 lakh.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the appellants on 14.2.1991. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Duplex Boards.Verification resulted in recovery of various records viz. 3 Log Books of machines for the period between 25.7.90, to 28.7.90, 20.12.90 to 30.1.91 and 31.1.91 to 14.2.91. Power Consumption Register for a period of 1.7.90 to 9.8.90 and 13 Duplex Board pieces showing production; 18 raw material purchase challans and copies of Electricity consumption bills up to January, 1991. The documents were found to be Incriminating and were, therefore, seized.3. On physical verification of the stock, the following discrepancies were found:___________________________________________________________________________S. Description Recorded Balance as Stock physicallyNo. of goods per RG. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Hyderabad Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)LC418Tri(Delhi)
1. All these three appeals arise from common order passed by Collector (Appeals), New Delhi confirming the rejection of claim for deductions of freight and other packing expenses "Railway siding from the assessable value; loading and unloading charges and other expenses like demurrage and Wharfage.2. It was contended by ld. Advocate before us that the railway siding charges are maintenance charges given to the railway department which undertakes the maintenance during the year. This is done inside the factory premises and includes all other charges connected with the railway siding paid to the railways. As regards, the demurrage and wharfage paid on account of delay in the loading and unloading of the wagons beyond the free time allowed are incurred during the process of transportation and it was pleaded that there were admissible for deduction as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International case. The same plea was raised with regard to loadin...
Tag this Judgment!Rishiroop Polymers P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT326TriDel
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, confirming a duty demand of Rs. 2,29,617.20 for the period from October, 1985 to August, 1986 on "Vinrub" holding this product to be classifiable under sub-heading 3904.90, rejecting the claim of the assessees for classification as PVC compound under 3904.20 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the first appellant and Rs. 10,000/- on the second appellant, who is the Commercial Manager of the first appellant company.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Rishiroop Polymers P. Ltd. manufactured Polyvinyl chloride, etc. They also manufactured a product called 'Vinrub' during the period October, 1985 to December, 1986 and declared this as PVC compound falling under T.I. 15A of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification 70/84, dated 1-3-1984. After the introduction of the new Tariff from 1-3-1986, the assess...
Tag this Judgment!