Delhi Court June 1999 Judgments
Ramji Sandhu Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC107Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.2. In this case a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act.3. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.7.1995, an information was received by the Customs authorities and the C.B.I, in respect of smuggling of gold. On this information, one Shri Ashok Kohli, who came from Dubai, was intercepted by the Customs authorities, but nothing was recovered on search. However, on rummaging of the aircraft came from Dubai, on which Shri Ashok Kohli travelled, one packet wrapped with black adhesive tape was recovered from toilet concealed beneath the toilet seat. Eighteen biscuits of gold of foreign marking and currency in the shape of 20 Pounds were found from the packet. Initially, Sh.Ashok Kohli, denied the knowledge of this gold. The Customs & C.B.I.Officers kept watch on the aircraft and one person named was la...
Tag this Judgment!India thermit Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT593TriDel
1. The issue involved in all these appeals is the valuation of captively consumed goods. The appellants have been selling 20% of their production of the goods in question to Railways. The remaining 80% are captively consumed in the manufacture of other goods, which in turn, are also sold to the Railways. The dispute has arisen on account of the appellants' claim that an additional discount in the nature of quantity discount should be allowed in respect of captively consumed goods, since those goods amount to 80% of the production.2. When the case was called today, none appeared for the appellants.Learned DR, Shri Shiv Kumar submits that there is no merit in the claim of the appellants for additional discount in respect of captively consumed goods. Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that "discount allowed in accordance with the normal practice of the wholesale trade...shall not be included in the assessable value.In the present case, as the goods are captively...
Tag this Judgment!Chajjar Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC383Tri(Delhi)
" 4.1 M/s. Mool Chand Sujanmal and Company, 27, Light Industrial Area, Jodhpur ((hereinafter referred to as the Unit No. 1 /M/s. MCSMC also) and M/s. Chajjar Textiles, Plot No. 27A. Light Industrial Area, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Unit No. 3/M/s. CT also) were both engaged in the processing of Cotton and Man-made fabrics falling under Chapters 52 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 12-2-1994 the officers of Central Excise Division, Jodhpur, along with two independent witnesses visited the factory premises of M/s. Mool Chand Sujanmal and Company, M/s. Chhajjar Textiles and M/s. Kamala Industries (hereinafter referred to as the Unit No. 2/M/s. KI also). Shri Ganpatlal Sancheti and Gautam Chand Sancheti, the two partners of the Unit No. 1 were present there. 4.2 Shri Gautam Chand Sancheti, during the inspection of the above units informed the officers that the Unit No. 1 had been engaged in the possessing of Textiles since 1969 at 27, Light Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Jalmadhu Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC921Tri(Delhi)
1. The two appeals filed by the appellants against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 12-1-1996 were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. We have heard Shri V.S.Nankani, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri P.K. Jain, SDR for the Commissioner.2. The appellant M/s. Jalmadhu Corporation is a proprietary concern on whom duty demand of Rs. 27,97,284 and a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed by the impugned order. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed on the Managing Director, Shri Kishore G. Motwani, the other appellant. The appellant concern is engaged in the manufacture of Asbestos Cement Pressure Pipes and Couplings. They claimed the benefit under Notification No. 175/86 and they were registered as SSI unit with the Directorate of Industries, Rajasthan. Notification No. 60/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 gave exemption to the goods manufactured by the appellants if it contained fly ash not less than 25% by weight. The benefit of this notifi...
Tag this Judgment!Emgees Clubley Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT189TriDel
1. In this case, capital goods, credit had been disallowed on air compressor falling under sub-heading 8414.80, spray gun under sub-heading 8424.80 and spares under sub-heading 8424.99.2. We have heard Shri Alok Arora, ld. Advocate and Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR. The first item is air compressor and it is not of a kind used in refrigerating and air conditioning appliances which alone is excluded from the definition of capital goods. Further air compressors have been held to be eligible capital goods in the case of Modern Petrofils 1997 (96) E.L.T. 404. Following the ratio thereof, we hold that the credit is available to the appellants on air compressor (oil flooded rotary screw compressor). Regarding the second item, the appellants have clearly explained that spray guns are mounted on the machine falling under Heading 84.51 and it is used as accessory for spraying abrasive particles and binder solution on non-woven pads in the manufacture of the final products of the appellants. Spray...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Premier Poly Film Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT192TriDel
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ghaziabad who has held that power cables, electric motors, distribution board, static converters, control panel and centrifugal pumps used in the factory of the respondents herein are capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q and hence entitled to Modvat credit.2. None appears for the respondents; hence we heard Shri H.K. Saran, learned SDR and perused the records. (i) Power cables : These cables are connected from main distribution panel room as shown in drawing in red mark. These cables are going to various machines which are altogether functioning to enable production of PVC sheeting and film etc. on the main calender machine. (ii) Electric motor (AC & DC): These motors are used for driving main calender machine and laminator etc. for cooling PVC film sheetings. (iii) Centrifugal pump : These are used to circulate cold water in various parts of calender and laminator etc. for cooling PVC ...
Tag this Judgment!indo Gulf Fertilizers and Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT448TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-7-1996 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad.2. In this case, the benefit of Notification No. 81/75-C.E., dated 22-3-1975, as amended, was denied to the appellants in respect of sulphuric acid used in the cooling towers for the control of pH (acid alkaline ratio) value of this water, which was used in the ammonia and urea plants.4. We find that the issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in appellants' own case in appeal No. E/1357/95-C and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 435/99-C, dated 19-5-1999 allowed the benefit of Notification 81/75-C.E. in respect of sulphuric acid used in the cooling tower in appellants' unit. The Tribunal held as under : "The contention of the appellants is that the sulphuric acid is used in the cooling tower for the control of acid alkaline ratio (pH value) of the water which was later on used in the ammonia plant. The contention of the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Inder Singh and Sons
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT417TriDel
1. The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985, and are availing Modvat credit facility under Chapter V-AA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They availed Modvat credit on MS scrap and steel scrap (re-rolled) falling under CET sub-heading 7204.90 which did not appear to be admissible to a re-rolling mill as scrap falling under the above mentioned sub-heading does not cover an article which could be converted into another article by hot rolling, as per Note 6(A) to Section XV of the Central Excise Tariff Act and the HSN Explanatory Notes at pages 987 and 988. A show cause notice was issued proposing denial of credit, demands were confirmed; the lower appellate authority allowed the appeals filed before him by the assessees, following the Tribunal's decision in the Munoth Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 285 (T). Hence these appeals by the Reven...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Unicast (P.) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT161TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, preferred by the Revenue, is classification of certain products, which are used as parts of the cooling tower, whether they are classifiable under sub-heading 3925.99 as claimed by the Revenue or under 84.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as decided by the Collector (Appeals), in the impugned order.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents, M/s. Unicast Pvt. Ltd., though under their letter dated 10-5-1999, they have authorised one Manjeet Singh, Advocate to appear on their behalf.3. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, ld. SDR, who submitted that the cooling towers are building like structure and for construction and erection of the same, a number of products are manufactured in separate course and assembles. Accordingly, these items and parts, being builderswares, are to be classified under Heading 39.25.4. We have considered the submissions made by ld. SDR and perused the records. We find that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Daily Thanthi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT688TriDel
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Shri R.K. Handu, Proxy Counsel on behalf of Shri Puneet Arora, Advocate prayed for adjournment on the ground that the concerned Counsel is to go to Chandigarh. Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal. In these circumstances request for adjournment is denied and the appeal is taken for disposal.2. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-9-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.3. In the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) held that rubber blankets were classifiable under Chapter 40.08 of Central Excise Tariff.4. Learned DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that the Collector of Customs in the impugned order relied upon the earlier Order-in-Appeal land Revenue filed the appeal against the order relied upon by the Collector of Customs and the Tribunal allow...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »