Delhi Court October 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 7 of about 150 results (0.010 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT642TriDel
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification No. 207/88 is available to the diamond segment.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents in spite of notice. The notice has been received back undelivered by the postal authorities. We, therefore, heard ld. DR. and perused the Records.3. The issue involved in the present appeal is no longer res Integra as the Tribunal has decided the same in the case of Winter Misra Diamond Tools Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur -1996 (83) E.L.T. 670 (T) in which it was held that diamond segments are parts of saws and parts of saw blades will be covered under Heading 82.02 by virtue of explanatory notes. The Tribunal extended benefit of Notification No. 207/88 to the Diamond Segments. The appeal against the Tribunal decision filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T.A52. Following the ratio of these decision, the Appeal filed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Mfg. and Marketing Co. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT825TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (A) who held that "C.T.H. 9021 covers orthopaedic appliances, including crutches, surgical bells and trusses, splints and other fracture appliances, artificial parts of body, hearing aids other appliances to compensate for a defect or disability. Item under import does not fit in any of the description of main heading. Item under import basically being heat retainer is ruled out of C.T.H. 9021. Similarly C.T.H. 9506 covers protective equipment, which are pre-injury protective equipment and not post injury pain relievers. Item under import are post injury pain relievers, therefore, cannot be classified under Heading 9506. C.T.H.6307 covers other made up articles of textile, including dress patterns. For classification under C.T.H. 6307 presence of rubber threads is not precondition. However, presence of non-porous rubber layer in between outer layer and inner layer of fabric serves same elastic purpose. Support articles for kne...
Tag this Judgment!Hcl Picker Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT998TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal 626-C.E./MRT/98, dated 26-10-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad.2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri R. Krishnan, ld. Advocate submitted that the appellants are manufacturers of C.T. Scanners. C.T. Scanners were cleared from their factory to their depot for sale after filing necessary price declaration. They claimed a deduction towards retailing expenses to the extent of 1% to 1.5%. This retail margin was not allowed by the authorities below on the ground that transaction effected by the party was of wholesale trade and not retail. Shri Krishnan, submitted that in the instant case the item was supplied to the hospitals and nursing homes wherein the buyers have used the items for their own consumption. Further, he said that issue involved in this case has been covered by the ratio of the decision of Tribunal in the case of Modi Xerox Ltd. v. C.C.E. [1989 (40) E.L.T. 481]. View ta...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Tara Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT994TriDel
1. These are six appeals filed by the Revenue involving a common issue, and therefore, they are taken together and the appeal disposed of by this common order.2. At the outset, Shri Gagan Kohli, ld. Advocate arguing for the respondent submitted that the issue involved in this case has been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ahmedabad Mfg.Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E. [1994 (3) RLT 726]. Further, he said that this ratio has been followed in the subsequent case as per Order No. 389/99-A, dated 22-3-1999 in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v.Sabina Woollen Mills Ltd. In the aforesaid cases, it was held that the process of carding and combing does not amount to manufacture. In the facts and circumstances, since the issue has already been settled in the aforesaid case and the process undertaken by the assessee does not amount to manufacture, following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. In the result, the appeals filed by the department are ...
Tag this Judgment!Jan Sewak Traders Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT129TriDel
1. The impugned orders fixed the capacity of Stenters for processing of fabrics in terms of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processor Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. Orders have been passed without hearing the assessees and without issue of show cause notice.Therefore, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, I dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides, by setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the case for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the appellants of being heard and explaining their case that closed spaces/ducting are required to be excluded for the purpose of arriving at the annual capacity of the stenters, since they do not aid in heat setting or drying of fabrics and that the closed spaces/ducting could not be termed as equipment in terms of Explanation 1 to Notification No. 42/98. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside and the appeals allowed by remand....
Tag this Judgment!Pesticides India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT696TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner disallowing Modvat credit on the following items: The appellants have asked for a decision on merits and hence I have heard the learned DR and perused the records.2. The crucial function of Delivery Valve Seat Cylinder Liner and Spacer Rings is to chill brine water which is used to maintain desired atmosphere around the reaction vessel in which the process of manufacture of pesticides is carried out. Sub-clause (iv) and Clause (d) of the explanation to Rule 57Q(1) covers Compressors (other than of a kind used for refrigerating and air conditioning Appliances) falling under Heading 84.14 as capital goods. Since the Delivery Valve Seat Cylinder Liner and Spacer rings are parts of compressors used for refrigerating appliances, they are excluded from the scope of the definition of capital goods and hence I hold that credit is not admissible on these items...
Tag this Judgment!Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT528TriDel
1. Modvat credit has been disallowed on the final items used by the appellants who are manufacturers of Telecommunications cables : 2. I have heard both the sides and perused the records and record my findings as under : 1. Grease Pump : This is a hand operated Grease pump having a container barrel and spring load piston and when operated with the hand, grease comes out with pressure through the hose provided with nozzle attachment. The Grease pump is used for lubricating of machine parts bearings bushes sliding parts etc. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. reported in [1998 (101) E.L.T. 422] that Gear pumps for hydraulic oil distribution are used for producing or processing of final product or bringing about change in the products which are finally used in the manufacture of final product and hence eligible to Modvat credit as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The ratio of this decision is required to ...
Tag this Judgment!Super Polyfabriks Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT1019TriDel
1. The above two appeals were heard together since the issues raised were common in both the appeals. They are being disposed of by this common order. We have heard Shri G. Shiv Das and Shri M.P. Devnath, Advocates for the appellants and Shri Sumit K. Das, ld. JDR for the respondent Collector.2. Brief facts are : M/s. Super Poly Fabrics Ltd. as well as M/s. Fine Fabricators are manufacturers of HDPE bags and sacks falling under Chapter Heading 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They paid Central Excise duty at the time of clearance of bags and sacks. They also availed the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93.3. According to the Appellants, M/s. Fine Fabricators (FF for short) send HDPE granules to M/s. Super Poly Fabrics Ltd. (SPF for short) for the manufacture of fabrics on job work basis in terms of Notification No. 83/94 and 84/94-CE as per declaration filed by them. SPF in turn convert the granules into fabrics and send them back to FF who thereafter manufacture ...
Tag this Judgment!Beico Electrical Insulations Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT755TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of, inter alia, laminated non-wovens and were paying duty on those goods under sub-heeding 56.03 of the Central Excise Tariff. A Show Cause Notice No. 13/94, dated 25-3-1994 was issued to the appellants by the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad alleging that the goods were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3920.37 and the appellant is liable to pay differential duty of over Rs. 24 lacs during the period 1989-90 to 1991-92 (upto February, 1992) on account of the wrong classification (and payment of duty at lower rate). It was alleged in the Notice that the assessee had misdeclared the classification and had suppressed the fact regarding pro-dominance of the ingredients which were material for the classification of the goods, thereby attracting the Proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the purposes of recovering the duty short levied. Classification list from time to time indicating the correct description of the goods...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT692TriDel
1. Modvat credit of Rs. 3,88,667/- has been disallowed on the ground that it has been taken on the strength of original invoices during the period when duplicate copy for transporter was the valid duty paying document on the strength of which credit was required to be taken. The appellants submit that the duplicate copy has been misplaced by the transporter and therefore, they were left with no alternative but to avail credit on original invoices and they also submit that taking credit on original invoices was permitted, in case of loss of duplicate as per Rule 57G(2A). They therefore, plead for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the above mentioned amount.2. The learned DR opposes the prayer contending that in the face of the clear language of the Rule, credit was not available on original invoices and that Rule 57G(2A) does not cover the present situation where duplicate invoices are stated to have been misplaced, since that Rule provides only for taking of credit on orig...
Tag this Judgment!