Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments

Juicy Beverages P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT331TriDel

1. Ld. Advocate Shri J.P. Kaushik, points out that the order-in-original dated 14-2-1994 leading to the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.The show cause notice in the said case was issued on 5-8-1993. But this show cause notice has been decided by the concerned Assistant Collector referring to the applicant's reply to the earlier show cause notice and to the earlier record of personal hearing, which resulted in Order-in-Original No. 67/AC/D/93, dated 30-7-1993. He submits that granting of personal hearing is the mandatory requirement under the Central Excise Rules. Breach of that leads to infirmity in the order and therefore, entire proceedings are not at all sustainable.3. We agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocate Shri J.P. Kaushik that order-in-original in the present case leading to the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority was passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jeh Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT280TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 28-2-1995 in which the Collector (Appeals) has classified the printed wrappers under sub-heading No. 4823.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, who, under their letter dated nil have requested to decide the matter on merits. We, therefore, heard Shri A.M. Tilak, ld. DR and perused the records.3. The respondents, in their letter, have submitted that the issue involved about the classification has been decided by the Tribunal in their own case vide Order No. 858/98-C, dated 21-9-1998 in which the impugned product has been classified under sub-heading 4823.19. The respondents have submitted that they had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 49/87, dated 1-3-1987. In addition, the Board under Circular No. 42/90-CX 4, dated 23-10-1990 has clarified that printed wrappers for wrapping soap cakes, chocolates etc. will be cla...

Antifraction Bearings (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Matters called. None for the appellant despite notice of hearing having been sent to the appellants herein by registered post on 23.2.99. It is presumed that the notice must have been received by the appellants. There is no response from them. In the circumstances, appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution. Since the appeals have been disposed of, cross-objections also stand disposed....

Tech Nova Imaging Systems Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(85)LC103Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants had imported one machine namely Panther Pro-46 Image Setting System and "Application Software for Image Setting comprising of RIP and ESCOR II Screening" through a bill of entry filed on January 8,1996.2. According to the department, there was a mis-declaration in the value of the goods with an intention to evade duty. The machine and the Software are always sold together and since Software attracted lower duty, separate values were shown as a deliberate attempt to evade duty.3. It was the contention of the party that they were distributors of the supplier, M/s. Prepress Systems, USA and as a distributor they had been invoiced the subject goods in accordance with the international distributor price list of the exporter. It was also the contention of the party that the exporter had confirmed the distributor price for the item as US $ 51,460 and that a discount of 15% has been granted on the said distributor price in view of the fact that the item was meant only for de...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ideal Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT31TriDel

1. These are four appeals filed by the Revenue against the common order-in-appeal dated 8-9-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Pune.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents M/s Ideal Chemicals, Nanded. However, there is a letter dated 8-12-1998 from Wellcare Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. with a request to decide the matter on its merits as Collector (A) has passed the order in their favour and the Additional Collector, Aurangabad had also refunded the amount of duty to the respondents. We therefore, heard Sh.H.K. Jain, ld. SDR and perused the records.3.1 Ld. SDR submitted that the respondents were manufacturing P or P medicine which were marketed by M/s. Wellcare Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. after printing their monogram on the labels/cartons of P or P medicines. The Asstt. Collector under four different orders denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty. However, on appeal, ld. Collector (A) held that the...

C.C.E. Vs. Vallabh Vidyanagar Concrete

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT741TriDel

1. The issue involved in the present matter is whether the broken poles are liable to duty. Revenue has imposed duty under Chapter 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act on the ground that the broken poles have been sold by the respondents.2. We have gone through the records. We have also heard ld. JDR Shri V.M. Udhoji, for the appellant Revenue. We do not agree with the contention of the Revenue that broken poles are marketable as PPC poles. We therefore, do not find any substance in the Revenue's appeal.Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue....

Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC413

1. The cotroversy involved in the present appeal is regarding dutiability of denatured ethyl alcohol under Tariff Heading 2204 for the period 1-9-1985 to 28-2-1989. A show cause notice for the same was issued on 3-7-1990 proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 63,62,685.09. It also proposed imposition of penalty under the relevant rules.2. On adjudication, the concerned Collector of Central Excise had confirmed the aforesaid demand of duty and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence this appeal by the appellants herein. Ld.Advocate Shri K.P. Joshi, submits that the demand of duty is not sustainable for the reason that there are number of judgments of the Tribunal for example S.M. Shankar Rao Mohit Patil S.S.K. Ltd. v. CC, Aurangabad [1998 (102) E.L.T. 115 (Tribunal)]. This judgment of the Tribunal relies on earlier judgments reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 147 and 1996 (84) E.L.T. 154 (Tribunal) in the case of Cellulose Products of India Ltd. v. Collector, Vadodara.3. We have conside...

Weldcut Equipment Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex., Bombay

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC166Tri(Delhi)

1. By Order-in-Appeal dated 13-9-1990 Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay confirmed the order V of the Assistant Collector holding that Pressure Regulator as well as Pressure Regulator with Flow-meter were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 84.81 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Present appeal is directed against the said order.2. When the matter was called none appeared for appellants. It is seen that the Advocate for the appellants had by letter dated 21-3-1998 sought decision of the Appeal on merits on the basis of evidence and record available before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the matter on going through the record and after hearing the ld. SDR.3. Ld. SDR submitted that the appellants were manufacturers of three types of excisable goods, viz. (i) Pressure regulator, (ii) Pressure regulator with flow-meter and (iii) Manifold. Classification lists filed by appellants with effect from 1-3-1986 and 2-4-1986 classifying item No. (i) under s...

Advance Structurals Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(83)LC242Tri(Delhi)

1. All mese appeals raise a common issue-excisability of EOT and certain other Cranes and irrigation gates manufactured by the appellants. The goods are manufactured against specific contracts of mostly Government departments. The appellants are small scale manufacturers.2. The appellants have submitted that in respect of cranes they manufacture some of the parts like bridge girders, trolleys, end carriage, gear box, etc., while the other parts such as motors, wire ropes, switch gear, control gear, gantry girders, downshop leads, etc.are purchased from other manufacturers or from the open market and are assembled by them. They have submitted that in respect of irrigation gates, the activity carried is one of fabrication.3. The main contention of the appellants against excisability of these goods is that they emerge as identifiable goods only on assembly and erection at site and that at that point they ceased to be goods, inasmuch as they are fixed to earth as immovable property. The a...

indo NissIn Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC142

1.1 The appellants herein exported goods to Nepal under Rule 13(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Notification No. 150/81, dated 29-7-1981 (as amended). The said notification envisages the following conditions :- (1) the payment for the goods shall be in freely convertible currency; (2) the importer in Nepal shall open an irrevocable letter of credit in favour of the exporter in India, before the export takes place; (3) the exporter shall execute a bond in proper Form under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and for such amount and in such manner as may be determined by the Collector of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory or the warehouse from where the goods are removed for export to Nepal; (4) the exporter shall furnish a certificate to Appendix 1 to this notification from the Reserve Bank of India or any other Bank authorised to deal in foreign exchange by the Reserve Bank showing that full payment for the goods has been duly received in freely convert...