Delhi Court October 1999 Judgments

Parle Biscuits Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT706TriDel

1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi dated 20-2-1996, by which Modvat credit on 'Printing Ink' and 'Media' was denied to the appellants. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the Asstt.Commissioner in Order-in-Original was also confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants, Shri Harbans Singh submits that the issue is fully covered in the appellant's favour by a series of decisions of this Tribunal. He cites the following decisions inter alia in support of his contention that 'Printing Ink, and M.G. Poster Paper' used in the manufacture of 'Printing Waxed Paper' are entitled for Modvat credit under Rule 57A :- (a) Brooke Bond Lipton (India) Ltd. v.C.C.E. reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 293 (Tribunal), wherein printing ink utilised for printing 'brand name and manufacturer's name' on paper bags to identify package tea was held to be eligible for Modvat credit, (b) C.C.E., Pune v. Sathe Bisc...

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT141TriDel

1. These are 22 appeals filed by the appellants M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., with reference to the respective impugned orders involving the common issues and therefore they are taken together and are being disposed to by this common order.2. Heard Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate for the appellants and department was represented by Shri. D.K. Nayyar, learned JDR.3. The issue relates to Modvat credit. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Chassis fitted with engine falling under Heading 8706 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are making use of various duty paid inputs in the manufacture of their final product and are availing the benefit of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs in terms of Rule 57A. Show cause notices have been issued to the appellants proposing to deny the Modvat credit in respect of the following items :- 4. The appellants have become unsuccessful before the Commissioner (Appeals) in getting the relief. Not...

S.i. Virender Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Two legal issues fall for determination in this O.A, These are as hereunder: (i) Whether an official (Sub-Inspector) working under the respondents in Delhi Police can claim seniority on the basis of confirmation or on the basis of initial appointment in the grade? (ii) Whether administrative orders are required to incorporate the reasons, particularly when such orders contain have adverse civil consequences? 2. The determination of the aforesaid two legal issues would require narration of the background facts. Briefly stated, those facts are as under: Initially the applicant was appointed directly as a Sub-Inspector under the respondents on 09.07.90. The inter-se seniority position of the applicant as at Annexure PV dated 21.11.94 shows applicant's seniority at S. No. 24. His immediate senior was Mr. R.K. Dahiya (D 3081) and his immediate junior was Ajay Vedat. The said position of seniority was based on the provisions of Rule 5(e)(i) the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) ...

Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)76ITD206(Delhi)

1. These three appeals by the assessee are interconnected involving common grounds. For the sake of convenience, they are considered together and decided by this consolidated order.The original assessment for the assessment year 1989-90 was completed in this case on 27-3-1992 wherein the Assessing Officer added the value of the land and the building as per valuation adopted in the assessment year 1987-88 at Rs. 27 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs respectively. The said land and the building had been leased out by the assessee to M/s R.Narain Dyeing and Printing Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 3. In the first appeal it was contended before the Ld. CWT(A) that the inclusion of the value of the aforesaid land and building in the total wealth of the asses see-company was unjustified because they were exempt in terms of clause (vi) of sub-section (3) of section 40 of Finance Act, 1983. In the alternative, it was contended that the value taken by the Assessing Officer was excessive.4. The Ld. CWT(A) did not decide...

Pankaj Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT990TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the common Order-in-Appeal No. 57-CE/KNP-II/97, dated 19-11-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad.2. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, there is request from them for adjournment.3. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, JDR appearing for the Revenue/Respondent submits that the Order-in-Appeal refers to as many as 14 appeals and 11 appeals involving the same issue has already been disposed of as reported in 1999 (31) RLT 322. In view of the submissions made by the Departmental Representative and taking into consideration that the appeal with retrieval to the similar issue arising out of the impugned order has already been disposed of, we proceed to pass this order.4. In the case referred to above arising out of the same impugned order, it was held that it was admitted by the appellants that no duty has been paid by the appellants on the unserviceable rail materials as s...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. L.D. Textile Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT1036TriDel

1. Shri Willingdon Christian, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents raises preliminary objection on the ground that in the show cause notice, the appellant had held that the goods were classifiable under Chapter Heading 55.04 whereas in the appeal now preferred, the product is proposed to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 55.05. He submits that the department has by this appeal, made out a completely new case for classification of the product. He submits that at the appellate stage, a completely new case cannot be made. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be dismissed.2. Shri R.S. Sangia, learned DR submits that the issue was non-excisability of the product contested before the Tribunal as the authorities below had held that the product was non-excisable. He submits that this issue is the relevant issue and that the classification under a specific tariff item only is a subsidiary issue which follows the contention that the product is excisable.3. We have heard the riv...

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Petrochemicals Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT417TriDel

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 8-11-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. In the impugned order, the benefit of Notification No. 276/67-CE., dated 21-12-1967 was allowed to the 'Solvant C-IX' falling under Chapter sub-heading 2707.90, which was cleared under Chapter X Procedure for the manufacture of insulating varnishes.3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of 'Solvant C-IX' and were clearing the same after following the Procedure as laid down under Chapter X in terms of Notification No. 276/67. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents for denying the benefit of Notification No. 276/67 on the ground that insulating varnishes did not fall within the meaning of chemical and the benefit of notification is available to the inputs - 'Solvant C-IX' if it is used in the manufacture of chemicals.4. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and held that the respondents ar...

Kwality Ice Cream Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT975TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 26-6-1996 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The dispute is in respect of classification of product described as ice-cream mix/ softy mix. The Assistant Collector has held that the item would fall under Heading 2107.99 and would also be entitled to the exemption Notification No. 2/94, dated 1-3-1994. Not being satisfied with the finding given by the Assistant Collector the department has filed review petition before the Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that impugned goods are correctly classifiable under Heading 19.01. Accordingly, the classification list w.e.f. 1-3-1994 approved on 28-4-1994 classifying ice-cream under chapter sub-heading No. 2105.00 is set aside. He directed the Assistant Collector to quantify the duty amount on the basis of classification of the impugned goods under Heading 1901.3. Arguing for the appellant, Shri V.R. Sethi, l...

Kaushal Founders and Engineers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT133TriDel

1. Shri B.C. Saxena, ld. Consultant submitted that the authorities below had not taken into account the submissions made by the appellants in reply to the Show Cause Notice. He submits that the allegation against the appellants, viz., that there was excess balance of C.I.Castings and weight at the time of the visit by the Officers to the appellant's factory premises and recorded in Annexure-A, was based on wrong assumptions. He refers to Para 4 of the reply dated 12-6-1996, to SCN in which the appellants have explained that they had shown 'Nil' opening balance against item at Sl. No. 1 and 581 kgs against C.I.Castings at Sl. No.2 of the Annexure. The Department had mistakenly taken the figure of 581 kgs. as opening balance but, in fact, was actually the sale figure as on 16-12-1995. If stock register was seen, there was no difference of stock but only a minor variation of 491.3 kgs in the stock position. Appellants have therefore disputed the assumption of the Department that there wa...

B.H.E.L Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC70

1. The appellants filed the clearance from the Committee on Disputes to pursue the appeal. Today the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand is listed for hearing.2. In the impugned order the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for not complying with the provisions of Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, along with the stay application the appeal is being taken up for disposal.3. In the impugned order the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed on the ground for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act. The contention of the appellants is that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants.4. The applicants filed a Misc. application for modification of the stay order which was also not considered before passing the impugned order.5. Heard learned SDR, Shri R.D. Negi, and perused the appeal papers. In the impugned ord...