Delhi Court February 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kec International Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC221Tri(Delhi)
1. These three Appeals filed by the appellants, M/s. KEC International, Jaipur involve same questions for consideration. They were therefore, heard together on 5-1-1999 and are being disposed of by this common order.2. By common Order-in-Appeal dated 16-7-1991 Collector (Appeals), Jaipur disposed of three Appeals filed by the present Appellants against three adjudication orders, all dated 19-9-1990, confirming three duty demands for three different periods.3. Facts: Appellants are manufacturers of Transmission Line Tower parts falling under Tariff Heading 7303.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They filed price lists for approval of assessable value for levy of Central Excise duty chargeable on ad valorem basis. Scrutiny of contracts entered into by the appellants with their buyers showed that the contract provided for payment of testing charges by the buyers in addition to the price of fabricated material of transmission parts. In the price lists submitted by the appellants to the Asst...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Atlantic Spinning and Weaving
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC99
1. None is present on behalf of the respondents inspite of notice of hearing sent by registered post on 2-9-1998. We have heard the learned JDR in support of the Revenue's appeal.2. The respondents herein are engaged in manufacture of various types of yarns. They filed classification list No. 59/91-92 on 16-8-1991. The classification list was filed in respect of yarns of artificial staple fibre (ASF). The Assistant Collector approved the classification of the products listed at SI. Nos. 1 to 12 of the classification list without modification. However, in respect of products figuring at SI. Nos. 13 to 24 he ordered for provisional assessment pending final approval.They were issued a show cause notice as to why the products listed at SI. Nos. 13 to 24 should not be classified under sub-heading 5505.00 and why the rate of duty as at SI. No. 14(b) of Notification 53/91, dated 25-7-1991 should not be made applicable to these products.2.1 The Assistant Collector approved the classification ...
Upper Doab Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC412
1. The assessees are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad upholding the order of the Additional Collector who has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 81,970/- on Polypropylene filter bags used for filtration of cane juice on the ground that the item falls for classification under CET sub-heading 5909.00 as article of polypropylene cloth suitable for industrial use attracting duty at the appropriate rate and imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,000/-.2. We have heard Shri Kamaljeet Singh, learned Counsel and Shri A.K.Agarwal, learned DR. The appellants who are manufacturers of V.P.sugar, purchased polypropylene cloth, cut it into required size and stitch it to form filter bags used for filtration of cane juice. The product is different from its raw material i.e. cloth in running length, and has a specific purpose, namely for filtration of cane juice and hence a distinct excisable product different from its raw material emerges thereby satisfying the test ...
TIn Box Co. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC816Tri(Delhi)
1.1. The appellants herein have two units. In one unit they are manufacturing lacquered or printed sheets out of metal sheets purchased by them from the market. The process of lacquering and printing is done by them with the aid of power. These sheets so printed and lacquered are sent by them to the other unit i.e. unit no. 2 where metal containers are manufactured out of the said printed and lacquered sheets without the use of power. Revenue alleged in a show cause notice dated 17.3.1989 that the appellants herein were wrongly availing the benefit of Notification 71/83 dated 1.3.1983 and Notification 59/86 dated 10.2.1986 for clearance of metal containers manufactured in their unit no. 2 alleged to have been manufactured without the aid of power although the said metal containers were manufactured from the printed and lacquered sheets in which power was used in unit no. 1.Consequently, the benefit of the said notification has been denied and a demand of Rs. 19,97,719.00 for the perio...
Arora Soap and Detergents Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC107
1. This is an appeal filed against the order-in-appeal dated 29-10-1996 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Detergent Powder and Washing Powder as branded goods for M/s Goramal Hariram Ltd. using their brand name "555" as well as their own brand name. They had also opted for Modvat credit facility and filed necessary declaration under Rule 57G. They received Show Cause Notice No. V(30)D/ 149/95/7875, dated 29-9-1995 alleging that the appellants have wrongly availed Modvat credits on the basis of Invoices issued by unregistered dealers/traders; and such invoices issued by dealers/traders not registered with the department are not valid documents under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules in view of Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-199.4. The supplier of their raw material i.e. M/s Goramal Hariram Ltd. (from whom raw material was being procured for execution of job work) though had applied for thei...
Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC695Tri(Delhi)
1.1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of goods described as "concentrate of alcoholic beverages" contained in Barrels of wood. The values given for the two items were separate in the Bill of Entry showing the value of Barrels of wood (article of wood) as Rs. 8,61,120.71 GIF value. 1.2. Clearance was claimed against a specific import licence dated 20.12.1994 for the item concentrate of alcoholic beverages. However, it was alleged by the Revenue that no valid import licence was produced for the items "Barrels of wood" valued as above. Revenue was of the view that Barrels of Wood were in the nature of consumer goods covered under Negative List given in EXIM Policy 1992-97. Import of the wooden Barrels as a container of alcoholic beverages was without the cover of valid import licence and therefore, the import was treated as unauthorised. The goods, namely Barrels of wood were confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 8 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 1 l...
General Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC89
1. These are four appeals filed by M/s. General Engineering Works with reference to the common impugned order dated 14-2-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants submitted that issue was with reference to the inspection charges.Originally the Assistant Collector has disallowed the claim of the party with reference to the inspection charges in determining the assessable value. Party has filed an appeal against that order and the matter went upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the party with consequential relief. In pursuance to the order of the Tribunal, the party has filed refund claims. Refund claims have been rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the claim was not lodged within six months as stipulated under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Shri Anand submits that it is settled position now that since the matter was pending ...
Non-woven (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC379Tri(Delhi)
1. The classification of blankets manufactured by the appellants herein is the issue for decision in the present appeal - the assessee claims classification under CET sub-heading 6301.00 while the revenue has confirmed classification under CET sub-heading 5603.00. The period in dispute is from 25-1-1990 to 3-8-1990.2. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits and hence we heard the learned DR, Shri Udhoji and perused the records.3. The process of manufacture, as set out in the impugned order, is that the blankets are made out of virgin polyester fibre, polyester fibre waste and cotton fabrics purchased from outside. The fibres are washed and dried, opened in the opener machine and put in the garnetting machine for making very fine fibre layers. The fibre layers are then made to pass along with cross-lapper which form the polyester fibre laps of desired thicknesses which are then passed through the needle-punching machine and wound up on the cone tube. During the process, the ...
Devi Prasad Sunder Lal Khatri Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT29TriDel
1. These are two Appeals filed by the above appellants against two orders namely, (a) Order-in-Appeal, dated 2-4-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Allahabad confirming differential duty demand of Rs. 21,405.90 against the appellant and (b) another consequential order passed by the Collector (Appeals), dated 12-11-1993.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, ld. Advocate submitted that the issue relates to the includibility in the assessable value of the cost of containers in which Chewing Tobacco is sold by the appellants.3. Briefly the facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of chewing tobacco bearing brand names and classified under Chapter sub-heading 2401.41 of the Central Excise Tariff. Chewing tobacco is sold in tin containers which is the unit of sale. Since the tin containers are not returnable, according to the appellants, the cost of tin containers is inbuilt in the sale price and the cost of tin container is not separately charged from the customers and no separate bills are ra...
Ester Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT301TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is the eligibility of high speed diesel oil used as fuel for generation of electricity for manufacture of polyester chips, polyester films, etc., to Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had denied credit on this item as it was not covered as an input in terms of Rule 57A read with Notification 5/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994; the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order, holding that since the expression "goods" has been replaced by the expression "inputs" by the corrigendum dated 10-3-1997 to Rule STB, credit under Rule 578 shall be admissible only if the input is one specified under Rule 57A and since high speed diesel oil is not an input under Rule 57A, it cannot be considered as an input under Rule 57B. Hence, this appeal.2. We have heard Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate and Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, learned DR.3. We agree with the learned Counsel for the appellants...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »