Delhi Court June 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mahendra Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC109
1. This batch of 13 Stay petitions was heard together as the issue was the same and is being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts leading to the Appeals and the Stay Petitions thereon are that the Appellants are Rolling Mills. In terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, rules for determination of the final annual capacity of the Rolling Mills for purpose of levy and collection of duty have been formulated. In the present case, the ld. Commissioner fixed the annual capacity of the Rolling Mills on the strength of the investigation report of the Assistant Commissioner of the jurisdiction as also on the basis of the technical opinion obtained from certain experts. The ld. Commissioner did not disclose the content of the report filed by the Assistant Commissioner or the Expert opinion given by the Technical Expert and decided the issue against the Appellants.3. Shri Balbir Singh, the ld. Advocate, submits that while determining the annual capacity, the ld. Commissione...
Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC370Tri(Delhi)
1. Although there is a request for adjournment from the appellant's Counsel Shri A.S. Sunderajan on account of his pre-occupation, we are unable to acceed to the request because a number of adjournments have already been given in this case and the matter is as old as 1991.Accordingly, we have heard the ld. JDR Shri S.N. Ojha for the Revenue.We have also gone through the impugned order as well as the appeal memo filed by the appellants herein.2. The appellant's herein took diesel gear cutters for tin-plating outside the country and then reimported the same. The appellants produced a certificate from DGTD for release of the goods in terms of Notification No. 204/76 but the claim of the appellant, under the said notification was not accepted by the lower original authority on the ground that the said notifications speaks of 'repairs' being carried outside. But present case is not one of repairs but it is one of technological upgradation inasumch as the imported diesel gear cutters had be...
Nasik Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC522
1. Briefly stated relevant facts of the cases for disposal of these appeals are as follows:-- 1.1. The appellants herein are manufacturer of beverages "aerated water'. Apart from the manufacture of the' beverages, they have entered into a franchisee agreement for manufacture of Bisleri Club Soda with Aqira Minerals Pvt. Ltd. who are owner of the brand name. The latter have also entered into similar agreements with other manufacturers of beverages who also manufacture Bisleri Club Soda. The appellants were availing benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE holding themselves out as small scale industrial unit. 1.2. A question was however, raised by the Revenue that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE would be dependent upon the total clearances of the excisable goods (whether exempted or not exempted). Consequently three show cause notices were issued to the appellants by the Assistant Collector concerned. The said Assistant Collector held against the appellants and he directed that ...
Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC137Tri(Delhi)
1. Matter called. None for the appellants herein. They have, however, prayed for deciding the appeal on the basis of merits and the records available before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we have heard the Ld. JDR Shri S.N. Ojha.2. The appellants herein imported 12000 inserts. Out of this said quantity, for 5000 inserts, being parts of diesel engines, they claimed benefit of notification 155/86-CUS. The benefit of the said notification was duly allowed by the authorities. But now the appellants have come up in the appeal against the said decision stating that the authorities below have not considered the effect of notification No. 59/87 along with the notification 155/86-Cus. We have gone through the impugned order and to this extent we agree with the appellants herein that the authorities below have not made any comments whatsoever about the applicability of notification 59/87-Cus. and therefore on this aspect the matter requires to be remanded so far as 5000 inserts are concerned for wh...
Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT207TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal is whether SWR Pipe Fittings manufactured by the appellants are classifiable under Heading 39.17 as claimed by the appellants or under Heading 39.25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as decided by the Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order.2. Shri Rangwani, learned Advocate submitted that they are not manufacturing gutter in their factory. They are manufacturing only PVC Pipes and Fittings thereof. The pipes are connected to the gutter for the purpose of conveying water and as the size of the pipe is short, various pipes are connected with the help of pipe fittings. He submitted that the gutter has been defined in the various technical books. According to the Dictionary of Civil Engineering published by Penguin Books, gutter means a trench beside a canal, lined with clay puddle. According to the Indian Practical Civil Engineers' Handbook by P.N. Khanna, MIE, Chartered Engineer, gutters may be made of galvanised iron sheet, ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hcl Hp Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT487TriDel
1. In the appeal filed by the Revenue the issue involved is refund of duty paid twice under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules.2. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava/ learned DR submitted that the respondents have removed the consignment of computer hardware supplied to the State Bank of India on payment of duty. These computers were brought back to the factory under Rule 173L as there was some calculation errors in the documents. Shri Srivastava submitted that the goods can be brought back into the factory only for the purpose of repairing, reconditioning or reprocessing and not for the purpose of correcting the errors in the documents, as this process is not covered by Rule 173L. The Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and allowing the refund to the respondents.3. Shri H.N. Mathur, Manager Excise of the respondents submitted that there was no other procedure available to them for correcting the invoices for the purpose of duty. All the goo...
Gomati Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT156TriDel
1. The issue in this case relates to denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 15,816.89 p. on the ground that this amount of credit was taken on inputs on the strength of invoice mentioning 'delivery at Varanasi' which has been treated as not a duty paying document within the meaning of the relevant Rules. The period of dispute is July to November, 1995.2. The Assistant Commissioner held that since the invoices mentioned that delivery of the goods was to be taken at Varanasi, the appellant's contention that goods were meant to be delivered at their factory at Jaunpur is not acceptable. He has further held that since the method of transport and Vehicle No. on which the goods moved from Varanasi to Jaunpur are not mentioned on all the invoices, credit has been wrongly taken by the appellants. The lower Appellate authority has held that if it is presumed that goods were meant to be delivered at the registered office, the registered office of the appellants should have endorsed the entire consignme...
Eveready Industries (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT672TriDel
1. Several issues relating to Modvat credit are involved in this appeal. These are dealt with seriatem below :- 1.1 Lower authorities have denied Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs to the extent of duty paid on 'packing and forwarding charges' in relation to the inputs brought in by the appellants in their factory.Reason for disallowing Modvat credit to the above extent is that the 'packing and forwarding charges' have been collected selectively by the input supplier as is apparent from the fact that these are shown separately in the invoice and are not part of the price of the inputs.From this it has been inferred by the lower authorities that 'packing' is not a normal feature of the inputs.1.2 Ld. Advocate Sh. M.P. Devnath has stated that duty paid on inputs is allowed as Modvat: credit. 'Packing and forwarding charges' are as much part of the price of inputs as any other element, say the basic price of inputs.1.3 Ld. JDR hats reiterated the reason of lower authorities already set...
Kothari Detergents (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC507
1. These appeals are directed against the common order-in-appeal dated 25-6-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Allahabad, confirming the two separate orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Kanpur approving certain price lists for two different factories and directing appellant to pay duty on the basis of approval order.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of washing powder and detergent cakes, filed price lists with reference to the two factories showing excisable goods as washing powder, tariff classification as 3402.90, the wholesale prices for different States, the unit of sale as "1 bag (50 plastic pouch of 1 kg. each plus 1 kg. detergent cake (125 gm. X 8 = 1 kg.), the trade discount as 8 detergent cakes of 1 kg.under Chapter Heading 3481.20 as free gift and claiming the declared value as the value for approval. The Proper Officer approved the price lists after disallowing deduction of the value of 8 detergent cakes. He also directed duty to be paid on this basis. The...
Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT654TriDel
1. The dispute in the appeal relates to the manner of deduction of the elements of transit insurance charges, depot distribution expenses, interest paid on bills, outward freight and other handling charges. The price list filed by the appellant referred to the Auditor's figures for the proposed period and approval was sought subject to production of the actuals. The Assistant Collector passed a single supplementary order on various price lists holding that the actual figures would prevail and wherever actuals were less than the amounts claimed in the price lists, additional duty should be paid. This order was challenged by the assessee before Collector (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal.2. The only grievance of the appellant is that the lower authorities did not say anything as to what should be done where the actual figures are seen to be more than the amounts claimed in the price lists. The same question arose for consideration before us in a batch of appeals filed by the same appel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »