Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 13 of about 243 results (0.022 seconds)Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Gupta Soaps
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC157Tri(Delhi)
1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the Collector (Appeals) order dated 20-9-1993.2.1 Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Gupta Soaps manufacture detergent powder. They manufactured detergent for M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. out of raw materials supplied by M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. The detergents so manufactured was exported by M/s. V.A.M. International under bond. The respondents submitted two claims for the quarter January, 1991 to March, 1991 and April to June, 1991 on 22-8-1991 for refund of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs which were used in the manufacture of detergent which were exported under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector rejected both the refund claims, under order dated 23-3-1993, holding that the transaction between the Respondents and Godraj Soaps Ltd. was not on principal to principal basis as the detergent was manufactured out of the raw materials supplied by Godrej Soaps Ltd. and under the supervision of their inspector...
Tag this Judgment!LupIn Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT978TriDel
1. In the impugned order ld. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant got such capsules printed in their own name from M/s. Mittu Pharma, therefore, the consignments were enrouted from M/s. Universal Capsules to appellant factory via M/s. Mittu Pharma. Accordingly, the invoices on which credit has been taken were issued showing name of M/s. Mittu Pharma A/c M/s. Lupin Laboratory and held that there was a procedure for such movement of consignment subject for observance of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules at the relevant time. The adjudicating authority and the appellant had agreed that such procedure was in existence during the relevant time but the adjudicating authority did not consider this on the ground that appellant did not only faild to follow the procedure but on the ground that the availment is in violation of the provision of the Modvat rule in so far as the goods are consigned directly to M/s. Mittu Pharma. In view of this, ld.Commissioner (Appeals) rejecte...
Tag this Judgment!Gaba Electronics Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT528TriDel
1. Shri Naveen Mullick arguing for the appellants submits that apart from the merits of the case, the order suffers from denial of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no show cause notice was issued nor personal hearing granted. He drew our attention to Rule 233A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which reads as under :- "Rule 233A. No order confiscating any property, or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under these rules, unless - (a) a written notice stating the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such property or to impose such penalty; and (b) a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in writing within such time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein and of being heard in the matter;" 2. He contended that sow cause notice is a must before imposing penalty and in the instant case since the penalty has been imposed, the question of waiver does not arise. He also contend...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Saharia Laminates (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC162Tri(Delhi)
1.1. The respondent herein was having a provisional registration certificate valid from September 12.9.1990 to 11.9.1991. On the strength of that certificate the respondent availed the benefit of Notification 175/86-CE. Subsequently, however, the respondent shifted its factory from Nangloi to Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase II. Revenue has raised a demand of duty for the period 11.9.1991 to February 1992 on the ground that there was no valid registration for the aforesaid period and also because the factory had been shifted from Nangloi to Okhla Industrial Estate. The availment of the notification is for the earlier period for the factory at Nangloi and not for the new factory at Okhla Industrial Estate. Therefore, the benefit of Notification 175/86-CE was denied by the original authority. 1.2. On appeal the respondent herein succeeded. The said authority has extended the benefit of Clause (b) of para 4 holding that the respondent herein had availed the benefit of the said notification...
Tag this Judgment!Modern Food Industries Employees Union Vs. Modern Food Industries and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)413; 80(1999)DLT3; (2000)ILLJ227Del
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner-Union has prayed for the following reliefs:(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the services of the casual workmen mentioned above with retrospective effect i.e. from the date they got their first appointment. (ii) Direct respondents to follow the directive of equal pay for equal work and to pay the casual workmen accordingly. 2. The petitioner is praying for regularisation of the service of the casual labourers, who according to the petitioner-Union, have been working with the first respondent since 1985 as operators, loaders and peons. According to the petitioner-Union the nature of the work done by the workers is of permanent nature. The petitioner-Union has given a list of workmen who according to petitioner-Union are entitled to regularisation and to payment as permanent workmen on the basis of equal pay for equal work. It is stated in paragraph 7(iv) of the writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC503
1. Short question before us in these appeals is whether exemption given to "yarn, double or multifolded, manufactured out of yarn falling under Chapter 52, 54 or 55 of the said schedule on which an appropriate duty of excise has already been paid" will be extended to the yarn manufactured by the appellant herein.2. The process of manufacture of the yarn under consideration before us in all four cases is as follows : Two single yarns of man made fibre are taken together and twisted. Thereafter another single yarn of man made fibre is taken along with the aforesaid double folded yarn and twisted again. The product so obtained is described by the appellants herein as double or multi fold yarn entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 53/91 as mentioned above. On the other hand, Revenue contends that the yarn manufactured by the appellant is cabled yarn and is not covered within the expression "double or multi fold yarn" to which the benefit of said notification is available. It is furt...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. C.M.i. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC497
1. There two appeals involve common issue. Therefore, a common order is being passed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows : The respondents herein bring duty paid plastic granules. They also bring duty paid copper wire. They are undertaking plastic insulation of such copper wire. In the course of such insulation of wire and cables, plastic scrap arise in the following forms :- (1) at the stage of extrusion of the plastic granules, in the form of plastic sheeths. It is powdered and plastic sheeths scrap and there is no question of charging the duty on such plastic scrap because plastic granules are already duty paid. The Assistant Collector has already given the benefit of to the respondents on such scrap, (2) Next stage of scrap is when the insulation of the copper wire takes place and the insulation is not proper. In that case the scrap consists of plastic mass entangled with copper wire, (3) Plastic content of the insultated copper scrap wherein PVC cannot be separat...
Tag this Judgment!Garg Trading Co. and anr. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC969Tri(Delhi)
1. Ld. Advocate Shri Naveen Mullick prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 39,36,551.38 demanded as duty and of Rs. 3 Lakhs imposed as personal penalty. He also prays for a similar treatment for waiver of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the second applicant/appellant. The demand of duties are for the period 1988-89,1991-92. Show Cause Notice has been issued to the appellants herein on 22nd February, 1993, after the Officers had visited the factory premises on 24.8.1992 and their goods and records has been seized.2. It appears that the factory had closed by the time show cause notice was issued. The Officers, therefore had to paste the show cause notice on the gate of the factory. It also appears that at that point of time the proprietor (herein appellant) had gone out of Station and when he came back he noticed that the show cause notice had been pasted, but second page of the show cause notice was missing. He, therefore, wrote a letter on 24.3.1993 requesting ...
Tag this Judgment!Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC502
1. Question before us in this case is regarding excisability of rectified spirit or denatured ethyl alcohol, namely, whether it is excisable to duty under Tariff Heading 22.04. The period involved before us is 1-3-1986 to 28-2-1989 and show cause notice is dated 2-4-1989.1. Ld. Advocate submits that the demand of duty for the aforesaid period is clearly barred by time. Inasmuch as the entire matter was under consideration of the CBEC apart from the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Cellulose Product of India Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodam [1996 (82) E.L.T. 147 (T) [Para 23 of the said report]. He therefore, submits that the demand of duty even if assessable to duty is clearly barred by time. He prays for setting aside the demand of duty.2. Ld. JDR Shri V.M. Udhoji on the other hand, reiterates the finding of the adjudicatating authority which has held that although the appellants herein had mentioned this product under Item 7 in the form of Classification but they had not given complete a...
Tag this Judgment!Hind Lamps Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC163Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants herein imported goods namely "Electrocast Refractories with Zirconia" contents at 40% or above in standard dimensions. They claimed the benefit of Notification 242/76-Cus. for Basic Customs Duty and of 112/87-Cus. for Auxiliary Customs Duty. The said benefit was denied by the original authority on the ground that the appellants herein are actual users of the furnaces and not the manufacturers of the furnaces. Therefore, the imported refractory bricks cannot be called component parts of industrial furnaces, implying thereby that 'components' are understood to be meant only for initial assembly of a machine.2. On appeal the appellants herein did not succeed. Lower appellate authority has found that the appellants have not brought any evidence on record to show that the bricks are of special shape or quality. They are standard bricks as mentioned in the invoice and the Bill of Entry.Therefore the benefit of Notification 242/76 is not admissible. Hence this appeal before...
Tag this Judgment!