Delhi Court October 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 2 of about 150 results (0.025 seconds)Mohan Fibre Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT762TriDel
1. The issue raised in this appeal is whether demand can be made in relation to transactions which took place under an approved classification. Hon. Supreme Court in C.C.E., Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd. 1999 (115) E.L.T. 353 specifically ruled that such a demand in relation to past transactions cannot be sustained. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. We do so. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Western India Fabricators Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT801TriDel
1. The appellants vide letter dated 21-10-1999 made a request to decide the appeal on merit.2. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 26-11-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. drums. On 23-6-1990 a tempo bearing No. MRQ 3683 was intercepted by the officers of the Revenue. The gate passes accompanying tempo under which the goods were cleared shown a description of goods as waste and scrap of the metal. On examination of the goods it was found that along with some scrap the drums and components of drums were also in the tempo.4. The adjudicating authority issued the show cause notice and after hearing the appellants held that the appellants were clearing drums and components of drums under the cover of waste and scrap and ordered the confiscation of the goods. The goods were released on redemption fine and a penalty was also imposed on the appellants...
Tag this Judgment!Eddy Current Control Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT794TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the demand for past 6 months can be made under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, when the classification list filed by the appellants has been approved.2. Shri Tarun Gulati, learned Advocate submitted that this issue has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd. - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.). We also heard Shri A.K. Jain, learned DR.3. We find that the show cause notice was issued on 6-3-1989 demanding duty for the period from October, 1988 to February, 1989. It is clearly mentioned in the adjudication order dated 1-1-1990 passed by the Asstt.Collector that the classification list No. 1/88, dated 1-3-1988 classifying Electro Magnetic Variable Speed Drives (Dynodrives) is classifiable under Heading 85.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and Dynodrive with motor under Heading 85.01 and parts and accessories thereto under 85.48 was approved by the proper officer...
Tag this Judgment!Rathi Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT50TriDel
1. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. It is, however, seen from the record that the advocate for the appellants Shri Rajesh Chibber has requested for an adjournment on account of some bereavement in his family. Since the matter appears to be covered in favour of the appellant, the matter was taken up for hearing.3. The dispute relates to admissibility for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q for the steel wire rods. By order-in-original the Assistant Commissioner had allowed Modvat credit on the said items following the decision of the Tribunal in C.C.E., Mumbai v. Nova Udyog reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 532. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had by the impugned order denied credit on the above items holding that the said goods were received in the factory prior to 16-3-1995 and as per provisions of Rule 57Q (3) credit was not admissible to the said items before that date'. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Tanners Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT1032TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the finding of the Commissioner holding that during a particular period, the appellants instead of following the provision of Notification No. 214/86 followed the procedure set out under Rule 173N and, therefore they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 214/86.2. The appellants are manufacturers of shoes. They undertook the job work also. They were receiving leather from the shoes manufacturer converting into shoe uppers and returning it to the supplier of the leather. With the introduction of Budget of 1995-96, the appellants instead of claiming the benefit of Notification No. 214/86 availed the procedure set out under Rule 173N. The department alleged that the procedure set out under Rule 173A is applicable to such goods which are specified under Rule 139 and since the shoe uppers were not specified under Rule 139, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit under Rule 173N and asked the appellants to pay duty. The appellants in reply...
Tag this Judgment!Handigas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT703TriDel
1. The short point involved in this appeal is whether the appellants are required to execute B-13 Bond as directed by the Supdt. in spite of classification list finally approved by the Assistant Collector.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate submitted that as per the notification issued under Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Assistant Collector only has been designated as proper officer under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules for ordering the assessment as provisional. He requested that as the classification list has been approved, the Supdt. cannot ask them to execute B-13 Bond.3. Shri M.P. Singh, learned Departmental Representative, at the outset, firstly, mentioned that the letter issued by the Supdt. directed them to execute B-13 Bond is not appealable order as it is only a direction to execute a bond. He, further, submitted as the appellants are availing of the benefit of Notification No.175/86 which is conditional, the assessments are required to be provisiona...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Conductors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC72
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Ashok Conductors is the computation of assessable value after crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 75 lakhs.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice. We, therefore, heard Shri Ashok Kumar, learned Departmental Representative, and perused the records. The appellants availed of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and supply ACSR and AAC conductors to Gujarat Electricity Board. They had cleared the goods to the Gujarat Electricity Board on payment of duty at 30% though they were liable to pay duty at the rate of 20% as per Notification No. 175/86. Subsequently, while filing RT-12 Returns they requested, the credit of the duty paid in excess in their PLA. The Collector (Appeals) has disallowed them the refund, holding that as per their contract entered into with Gujarat Electricity Board, duty only to the extent of 21% was realisable from Gujarat Electricity Board and duty in excess...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Winding Wires and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT698TriDel
1. This issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Premier Winding Wires & Conductors is whether redrawing of wires amounts to manufacture.2. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants are manufacturing enamelled wire. They are purchasing wires in coils which falls under sub-heading 7408.11. They send these wires to the job workers for the purposes of redrawing into thinner gauge wire. He drew our attention to the gate passes in which the goods were received wherein it is clearly mentioned that these were in coil forms. He also refers to Note 1(d) to Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Tariff according to which Bars and Rods are rolled, extruded, drawn or forged products, not in coils. He submitted that as the product is in coil form, it cannot be considered as copper bars or rods. In support of his contention that re-drawing of wire does not amount to manufacture, he relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Mithan ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Asian Paints
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT972TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 7-7-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order the benefit of Notification No. 133/86, dated 1-3-1986 was allowed to the Epoxide resin and Polyester resin manufactured by the respondents. Learned JDR appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the benefit of Notification No. 133/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 was only available in respect of Epoxide resin falling under Heading 3907.30 and Polyester resin falling under 3907.91 or 3907.99 of the Central Excise Tariff and in case of mixture of resin or resin added with different additions are chargeable to duty under Notification No.14/92, dated 1-3-1992 which provides higher rate of duty. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. Shri Nikhil Mathur, Manager, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the Revenue is not disputing the classification of products. He submits that the Notification No. 133/86-C.E. specifica...
Tag this Judgment!H.E.G. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC698
1. This stay application is filed by the applicants for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 11,35,000/- and penalty of Rs. 15,58,000/- and stay of the recovery proceedings.2. Arguing for the applicants, Shri Ravi Holani, learned C.A. submits that issue relates to Modvat credit on capital goods as well as on inputs. He submits that dispute is in respect of the following items :- He said that the above items are Capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q and there was no justification to deny the Modvat credit. He also submits that alternative plea of their claim under Rule 57A has not been considered by the Commissioner while disallowing the Modvat credit.Apart from that, shortage in transit has not been considered by the Commissioner while disallowing the Modvat credit. Department was of the view that shortage of weight on such account would be the subject matter of reduction of Modvat credit equal to the quantum of such shortage. The Modvat credit involved on such so called sh...
Tag this Judgment!