Delhi Court October 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 8 of about 150 results (0.027 seconds)Devkinandan and Sons Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT67TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Devkinandan & Sons, is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 is available to meter boxes on which name of Rajasthan State Electricity Board is affixed.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants, in spite of notice. We, therefore, heard Shri R.K. Sharma, ld. SDR and perused the records.3. It was brought to our notice that the issue involved in the present appeal is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Belgaum v. Udaya Chandra Suvarna reported in 1999 (32) RLT 360, in which it was held that as per the Explanation VIII to Notification No. 175/86, the brand name shall mean a name which is used in relation to the specified goods for the purpose of indicating connection in the course of trade. As in the present case, there is no trading in the meter boxes, the mentioning of RSEB on the meter boxes will not amount to affixing of brand name and the mischief of para 7 o...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Agrico Engg. Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT1037TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 30-7-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central. Excise, Ghaziabad.In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise (Ap-peals) held that since the unit of the respondents was registered as SSI with the Director of Industries, therefore, all the goods manufactured by them in the, unit are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986.2. Heard Shri Jagdish Singh, and Shri Rajesh Rawal, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the unit of the respondents was registered as SSI unit for the manufacture of Oil engine, C.I.casting, Industrial machinery parts/and the said items were mentioned in their SSI registration certificate. The respondents also manufacture parts of crane, housing and bearing housing during the period July, 1991 to December 1991 and these items were not mentioned in their SSI registration certificate. Therefore, the benefit of Noti...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT977TriDel
1. The assessees claim for benefit of concessional rate of duty at 20% ad valorem in terms of S. No. 6 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 15/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 to Polyethylene Terephthlate (PET) classified under CET sub-heading 3907.60 has been rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that PET is not specifically mentioned against Sl. No. 6 which covers 'Polyacetals, resins, Polybutylene, Terephthlate, Polycarbonates and Polyester'. As a result of denial of benefit, a duty demand of Rs. 5,47,170/- has been raised for the period during 26-12-1994 to 15-3-1995. It is the contention of the appellants that PET is a 'species' of 'genus' polyester resin and therefore, when polyester resins have been specifically included in Sl. No. 6 of the Table to the notification, the benefit thereunder is available to PET.2. We have heard both the sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has indirectly agreed that PET is a polyester resin by holding that the contention of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. U.S. Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC97
1. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents, who have requested for adjournment of the matter as their Advocate is out of India.2. We observe that the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has remanded the matter regarding classification of steel balls to the Assistant Collector and as the issue involved is in a very narrow compass, we take the appeal for decision.3. We heard Shri Jagdish Singh, ld. DR, who submitted that the Assistant Collector should be given freedom to decide the classification without binding by the functional aspect of the product, in question. He also mentioned that during this period, the matter has also been decided by the Tribunal in other appeals.4. As the Collector (Appeals) has only remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for reconsidering the classification, we do not interfere with the order. However, we make the modification that the Assistant Collector is free to decide the classification of the product, in...
Tag this Judgment!Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT947TriDel
1. A duty demand of Rs. 10,06,185/- has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore on samples of ABS Polymers drawn for quality control testing which have come back to the production unit in the factory. A penalty of amount equal to the duty is imposed under Rule 173Q and Under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and interest Under Section 11AB is also directed to be paid by the appellants.2. We have heard Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate who contended that the ABS polymers have not reached the stage of completion of manufacture only, they have been tested in the laboratory and therefore, the question of duty liability on samples sent for testing does not arise. He relies upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of products like cigarettes and Dry Cell batteries wherein the Tribunal has held that testing and inspection is a stage in the process of manufacture and therefore, he contends that ABS polymers would become liable to duty only after they are retu...
Tag this Judgment!Espi Industries Chemical Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT81TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal relates to the classification of a product manufactured by the appellants by name 'Clearasil Daily Soap Wash' (CDSW for short). Initially the appellants had classified the product as coming under Chapter sub-heading 3402.00 as "organic surface active agents (other than soap), surface active preparation, washing preparation (including auxiliary washing preparation) and cleaning preparations; whether or not containing soap" which attracted a basic excise duty at the rate of 30% ad valorem. Later on appellants sought to amend the classification to Chapter sub-heading No. 3401.10 attracting basic excise duty at the rate of 25% ad valorem. Initially classification list filed by the appellants on 28-4-1992 was approved by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants claimed that its revised classification under Chapter sub-heading 3401.10 was justified on the ground that their product was a 'soap' which was evident from its name and hence rightly classifia...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Bhawani Cotton Mills and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT79TriDel
1. The captioned nine appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case in brief are that M/s. Ratangiri Hathkargha Vastra Ltd., M/s. Ratangiri Ind. Ltd. and M/s. Subham Hathkargha Vastra Ltd. procured yarn from M/s. Shree Bhawani Textiles. M/s. Shree Bhawani Textiles extended them the benefit of Notification No. 53/91, dated 25-7-1991. The Deptt. alleged that this notification required that the payment by the purchasing co-op, society shall be made through a cheque drawn on their own account maintained with the bank and that the society was not permitted to pass on a part or whole of the yarn so procured to some other person either for use in power looms or sale as yarn elsewhere. The appellants submitted that they were making payment by Demand Draft or Pay Order obtained from the bank against drawal of cheque on their own account maintained with the Bank. About passing on the yarn to power looms or selling it as such, the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Harish Textile Engineers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT784TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 16-8-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order, the benefit of Notification No. 201/87 was allowed to the cylinder screens manufactured by the respondents.3. We find that the same issue has already been decided by us.Therefore, the request for adjournment is declined.4. Ld. DR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that the respondents were manufacturing Nickel Rotary Printing Cylinder and the Notification No. 201/87 only grants exemption to printing frames and nickel rotary printing cylinders are two different products. Therefore, nickel rotary printing cylinders are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 201/ 87. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.6. Notification No. 201/87, dated 3-9-1987 grants exemption to the printing frames classifiable under sub-heading 8442.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The nickel rotary printing cylinders were also classifiable...
Tag this Judgment!Paradise Steel Rolling Mills and 8 Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC71
1. These appeals are filed against a common Order-in-Appeal dated 17.9.93 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the appeals, filed by the appellants against the provisional assessment, are premature.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the issue of classification in respect of the goods, in question, is settled by the Tribunal in the case of Calcutta Steel Industries v.C.C.E.filed by the Revenue against this decision of the Tribunal was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.Therefore, in this situation, the provisional assessment in respect of the same goods is unwarranted. He,further, submits that even the appeal lies against the order passed by the competent authority for provisional assessment. For this, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. C.C.E. and submits that in this case the Tribunal held that appe...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. A-1 Bright
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT896TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether process of electroplating of duty paid M.S. wire amounts to manufacture.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. We, therefore, heard Shri R.D. Negi, SDR and perused the records.3. The issue involved is no more res integra as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1989 (42) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.), held that limited purpose of galvanisation does not seem to bring a new commodity into existence and the steel pipe continues to be the same product even after galvanisation. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision we find no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!