Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 11 of about 205 results (0.022 seconds)Jai Mata Plywood Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC207Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellants herein during the relevant period 1-4-87 to 31-7-87 were manufacturing plywood products falling under two different Headings, namely 44.08 and 44.10. In respect of Heading 44.08 the appellants had exceeded the value of clearances of Rs. 15 lakhs, as stipulated in Exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and yet they did not start paying duty till 31-7-87. During this period i.e. 1-4-87 to 31-7-87, the appellants' products falling under Tariff Heading 44.08 had been cleared to the extent of Rs. 26,62,586/-. Revenue has demanded duty on the clearances in excess of Rs. 15 lakhs in respect of the product falling under 44.08 on the ground that the appellants herein had not deliberately determined correctly the duty liability in terms of Rule 173F. On adjudication the demand of Rs. 2,32,517.26, as proposed in the show cause notice has been confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has also been imposed.2. Learned Advocate Shri K.K. Anand, submits that prior to impugned show ca...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ganganagar Bottling Co. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT287TriDel
1. The appellants imported a Paramix Plant CMX 11/T 35-3 and spare parts. The invoice presented to the custom dated 13-12-1996 give a consolidated value of 2,81,310 DM. This invoice also referred to a proforma invoice dated 7-10-1996. The appellants seek the adoption of value given in the invoice dated 13-12-1996 as the basis for the assessment of the goods. The impugned order, however, held that there was another proforma invoice dated 26-9-1995 which indicates price for the machine as well as spare parts separately. In view of this proforma invoice, it was held that the supply of the accessories and parts in the instant case was not "compulsory" supply alongwith the machine and it was not a case of price of the spares being included in the price of the machine. The order therefore, holds that assessment of the spare parts also alongwith machine as provided in the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 is not permissible in the instant case. And that both the machine and parts should be...
Tag this Judgment!Gangeshwar Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT646TriDel
1. Question involved in this appeal is whether the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. can be extended to Polypropylene fabric which is used, as the Revenue alleges, in the manufacture of filter bags captively and those filter bags are used in gravity pond Alteration system in manufacture of dutiable final product, sugar.Contention of the appellants herein is that the filter bags are intermediate products and it is the polypropylene fabric which has been brought after payment of duty and their final product is sugar which is admittedly dutiable. Therefore, the benefit of Notification No.217/86-C.E. is clearly admissible irrespective of the fact that in the process of use of such fabric a certain shape is given to the fabric described by the Revenue as filter bags. In this connection, learned Advocate, Shri G. Shiv Das submits that an identical issue has been decided in their favour in the case of Upper Doab Sugar Mills v. C.C.E.reported by Final Order No. 188/99-D, dated 5-2-1999 ...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC291Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi who has confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,70,33,595/- raised under four separate show cause notices and directed its recovery under Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules, upholding the charge of contravention of Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules for the reason that the appellants removed inputs to job workers without payment of duty. The Commissioner has held that the appellants are not covered by the provisions of Rule 57F(2) as contended by them.2. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate who submits that the issue is covered by the Tribunal's earlier Orders No. A/746 to 750/95-NB dated 15.9.1995 and Shri Satnam Singh, learned SDR who seeks to distinguish the same.3. On a careful consideration of the submissions of both sides, we find that the appeals before us today are identical to the ones disposed of by the Tribunal's earlier order cited supra wherein also the issue of eligi...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Cement Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ391
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this order, I propose to dispose of objections filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act against the award dated 29.1.1998.2. In response to an invitation to tender, the petitioner submitted its offer and the same was accepted by the respondent. Consequent upon some disputes having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to sole arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement. The arbitrator rendered his award on 13.2.1996. The award was challenged by respondent No.2 before this Court. By the order dated 16.1.1997 passed in suit No. 1771- A/96, the award was remitted to the arbitration with a direction to give a reasoned award after taking into consideration evidence on record including the test reports. Pursuant to this direction, the arbitrator published his award dated 29.1.1998.3. The respondents have not filed any objection against the award. The petitioner has filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax Vs. Taxation Owners Sarla Bhargava Memo. Trust
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]112TAXMAN17(Delhi)
1. By this petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Income Tax Act, the petitioner has prayed that the Tribunal be asked to frame the statement of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act and holding that the provisions of section 13(1)(bb) are not applicable in this case.'2. Notice of this petition had been issued to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that no case for referring the above question for the opinion of this court is made out from the order of the Tribunal.3. The entire controversy in the present case revolves around the exemption under section 11 of the Act sought by the assessed on the ground that the assessed is a charitable trust. The trust-deed was executed on 23-11-1982. The matter in controversy relates to the accountin...
Tag this Judgment!Anika International P. Ltd. and Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC841Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeals arise out of a common impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and were hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the 3rd appellant herein filed a Bill of Entry dated 8.12.1997 through their CHA for import of goods declared as "printing paper uncoated, in reels, having not less than 70% mechanical wood pulp by weight of the total fibre content," and claimed exemption under Serial No. 78 of the Table annexed to Notification 11/97-Cus. dated 1.3.1997 at nil rate of duty and the goods were declared to be falling under the CTH 4802.60. The CIF value of the goods was declared as Rs. 20,43/255/- under invoice dated 25.10.1997 issued by M/s. Ridhima General Trading Company, Dubai. The goods were examined and found to be "standard newsprint" classifiable under Tariff Heading 48.01. The labels of the suppliers affixed on the reels bore the inscription "standard news-print" and also bore Order No...
Tag this Judgment!Adarsh Ice and Cold Storage Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC393
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty of 25% adv. as per Sl. No. 36 of Notification 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 in respect of Thermollyd expanded polystyrene blocks. There is no dispute that the goods fall for classification under sub-heading 3921.00 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. The benefit has been denied on the ground that the relevant Sl. No. of the Notification covers only "cellular films or sheets, other than polyurethenes" and does not cover blocks.2. Shri N.V. Raghavan Iyer, learned Counsel submits that in terms of Note 10 to Chapter 39, the expression "plates, sheets, films, foils and strips" applies also to blocks of regular geometric shape whether or not printed or otherwise surface worked .., and since blocks have been treated as covered by sub-heading 39.21 for the purpose of classification, the same interpretation should extend to the expression contained in Sl. No. 36 of Noti...
Tag this Judgment!Bharuka Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC120Tri(Delhi)
1. In the impugned order, the Collector had ordered that M/s. Bharuka Industries (P) Limited are liable to pay differential duty amounting to Rs. 96,776.70 only on stainless steel castings weighing 1176.2463 MT of S.S. Castings removed by them during August, 1980 to June, 1984. The demand of duty amounting to Rs. 19,86,62.81 on 756.4033 MT of CTC segments classifiable under T.I. 68 valued at Rs. 2,36,37,603.13 removed by the appellants during the same period is confirmed. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 4 lac on the appellant under Rule 173Q. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 31-7-1984, the Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the appellants and found they were manufacturing S.S. Castings falling under T.I. 25 (16)(ii) and subjecting them to further machining to obtain identifiable machine parts. The process of manufacture in the factory is that by melting scrap with oth...
Tag this Judgment!Auto Control (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC91
1. The Collector of. customs in the impugned order confiscated component parts of Electronic Typewriters covered by 12 Bills of Entry under Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods had already been released, he ordered that a sum of Rs. 2.00 Lakh should be recovered from the Bank Guarantee in lieu of confiscation. The Collector also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The Collector further ordered that the 12 Bills of Entry shall be assessed at the enhanced value. Being aggrieved by this order, the Appellants have filed the captioned Appeal.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Customs House collected intelligence indicating that the Appellant was importing complete typewriter in knocked-down condition under the guise of components for Electronic Typewriters and that some of the components were under invoiced. Accordingly, the goods were located and import documents were examined. On scrutiny of 8 Bills of Entry, it was observed that the ...
Tag this Judgment!