Delhi Court October 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 5 of about 150 results (0.018 seconds)Hindustan Metal Pressing Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT991TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Hindustan Metal Pressing Works is whether the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act relating to unjust enrichment are applicable in a case where refund has been sanctioned at the time of assessing RT 12 and a notice has been issued to demand the amount refunded erroneously.2. Briefly stated facts are that the Appellants removed the excisable goods at the effective rate of duty awaiting approval of their classification list No. 2/8b in which they had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986; that in pursuance of the approval of the classification list, the Range Superintendent allowed the refund of excise duty for the month of April, 1988 to August, 1988.Subsequently a show cause notice dated 22-2-1989 was issued for recovery of amount erroneously refunded. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 2,36,515.55 under his Adjudication order dated 8-2-1990, applying the principl...
Tag this Judgment!Unichem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT800TriDel
1. The matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants, M/s.Unichem Laboratories Ltd. The notice for today's hearing had been sent to the appellants on 24-9-1999 and a copy of the same was endorsed to the Counsel on record. The appellants are from Ghaziabad. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR, submitted that there was no dispute with regard to the facts of the case that the three air-conditioners had been received after the Notification No. 11/95 (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995 when the air-conditioners were made ineligible specifically for the benefit of Modvat credit. He submitted that the matter could be disposed of even in the absence of the appellants as there was no dispute with regard to the facts and that the legal provisions were clear. Accordingly, we proceed to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Mewa Singh, SDR.2. The appellants had availed Modvat credit in respect of the three air-conditioners and the credit had been availed of on 1-11-1995, 20-12-1995 and 20-12-1995 (sic)....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Fibrotex Bombay (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT723TriDel
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the benefit of duty free clearances under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was available only for the first clearances of Rs. 30 lakhs irrespective of whether the manufacturer has availed the benefit to the extent of Rs. 15 lakhs each on the two goods manufactured by him.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent has been manufacturing "Polyester Wadding" falling under Tariff sub-heading 56.01 and "Polyester Pillow/Cushion/Bolster" falling under Tariff Heading 94.04.The respondents were also an SSI Unit entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 as amended. In the said notification there was a condition that in case an assessee was manufacturing more than one item classifiable under different headings, duty free clearances will be limited to 'first' clearances upto Rs. 30 lakhs. The Department observed that the respondent had availed exemption upto Rs. 20 lakhs on goods classifiable under Chapter ...
Tag this Judgment!Sapna Foam Udyog Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT976TriDel
1. The short point to be considered in this appeal is whether the product as is cleared by the appellant in the form of Cushions of bus sheet would fall under 40.08 as claimed by the party or under 94.01 as per the department.2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri Navin Mullick, learned Advocate, submits that the issue involved in this case has already been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Matador Foam and Ors v.C.C.E., Kanpur as per Final Order Nos. 78-83/99-D, dated 22-1-1999, reported in 1999 (32) RLT 906. Further, he said that the ratio of this decision was followed by the subsequent decision in the case of R.K.Industries & Others, reported in 1999 (33) RLT 370.3. On the other hand, Shri Sangia, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue, submits that the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the department holding that the item is classifiable under 94.01 as reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 497. Shri Navin Mullick drew our attention to the observations made by the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Unichem Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT123TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the admissibility of air-conditioners and the furnace oil to the benefit of Modvat credit when the air-conditioners were received prior to 16-3-1995 and when the furnace oil was used to heat the syrup of PP medicines and to sterilise the empty ampules of injections. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, observed that the air-conditioners were received prior to 16-3-1995 and as the Notification No. 11/95-CE. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995 had no retrospective effect, and as the furnace oil had been used in the process of manufacture of PP medicines, the benefit of Modvat credit with regard to both these items was admissible. With regard to furnace oil, the appellate authority had relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1990 (50) E.L.T. 252 (Tribunal).2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents, M/s. Unichem Laboratories Ltd. The notice f...
Tag this Judgment!Versatile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT770TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 20-2-1997 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad.2. The appellant M/s. Versatile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in processing of sliver knitted fabrics or yarn knitted fabrics consisting predominantly of acrylic fibres.3. Arguing for the appellants, Shri K.L. Rekhi, learned Advocate, submits that process undertaken by the appellants are (i) back coating of the fabric with acrylic emulsion, (ii) shearing or cropping and (iii) electrifying polish. He submits that processes undertaken by the appellants are only temporary in nature, and, accordingly, the processing of grey fabrics and as such, they are not dutiable. He said that the issue involved in this case has been covered by the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Maharashtra Fur fabrics Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 857 which has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Aiyappan Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC80
1. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding classification of Galvanised Insulator Hardware. The respondents are manufacturer of galvanised insulator hardwares, moulding boxes, forged steel balls and G.I. stranded wires. They had filed classification list under Heading 8546.00 and availed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 as amended. However, this classification list was not accepted by the department. They served a show cause notice dated 13-2-1991 for reclassification of their goods under Heading 7326.90 with a consequential demand for duty. The Asstt. Collector confirmed reclassification as mentioned above and also confirmed the demand vide his Order-in-Original dated 18-6-1992. Aggrieved by this order of the Asstt. Collector the respondents went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who through the impugned order dated 31st December, 1992 refused to accept the classification as proposed by the Appellants as well as ordered the classification of the go...
Tag this Judgment!Divya Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT66TriDel
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether duty was payable at the fabric stage or at the stage when the assessee was paying duty after cutting this terry towelling fabric stitching into towels and hemming them.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of terry towelling fabrics and terry towels. During the material period, there was Notification No. 65/87, dated 1-3-1987 which inter alia provides that if the duty was paid at terry towelling fabric stage then no duty was required to be paid at the terry towel stage, stitched, hemmed and made out of terry towelling fabric.3. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Counsel, submits that in view of this exemption notification no duty was payable at the towel stage when duty was paid at the fabric stage. He submits that since the appellants had already paid duty at the towel stage and that amount was naturally higher than the amount that would have been paid at the fabric stage...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Indo Poly Coats Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT579TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the availment of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs - Embossed Casting Paper/Plain Release Paper (hereinafter referred to as the 'Release Paper'), when used in the manufacture of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) Coated fabrics (leather cloth), and Vinyl Floor Coverings. Both the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had decided that the release paper was an admissible input under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').2. I have carefully considered the matter. I find that the same issue had come-up earlier before the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Manish Vinyles - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 556 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal had held that the release paper used for transfer of plastisol on fabric was necessary for obtaining final product; it was neither an apparatus nor an instrument and that the Modvat credit was ...
Tag this Judgment!Kashyap Sweeteners (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT751TriDel
"The charge of contravention of Rules 9(1) and 173F of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for facilitating evasion of duty also stands proved inasmuch as the party had failed to determine and discharge their duty liability correctly on Sorbitol cleared by them to M/s. Sarabhai M. Chamicals, Baroda. They have, therefore, become liable to be penalised under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944".The Commissioner then ordered that demand of duty amounting to Rs. 81,32,904/- is confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs was also imposed on the appellants. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants manufactured Sorbitol. The Govt. of India issued Notification No. 31/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 prescribing effective rate of duty of 5% ad valorem for other bulk drugs falling under Chapters 28, 29 or 30 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. This notification explained the expression 'bulk drug'. The appe...
Tag this Judgment!