Delhi Court June 1999 Judgments

Atul Glass Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC383Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal covers two SCNs. Adjudging the first SCN the adjudicating authority held that "I, therefore order that the duty demanded in respect of these 2 entries are limited to 8% ad valorem chargeable under the Entry 68 at the relevant time. Insofar as the items covered by entries laminated safety glasses, curved toughened glasses and flat toughened glasses are concerned, there is no evidence available on record to show that they are cut to shape and size ready for fitment to motor vehicle so as to qualify for the benefit of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 473.I accordingly confirm the demand of Rs. 59,66,990.58." For the first show cause notice. Insofar as the second SCN is concerned, Collector held that "Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 6,33,336/- on the value of clearances is held to be payable under T.I. 23A(4). He also imposed a penalty Rs. 10 lac on the appellants." Being aggrieved by this order the appellants filed the captioned appeal.2. The fact...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Deluxe Enamel Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT710TriDel

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the goods manufactured by the respondent and marketed as Vitreous Enamelled Reflectors are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 76/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 as amended.2. The facts of the case in brief are that during the course of Preventive Checks, Central Excise Officers intercepted a lorry loaded with Vitreous Enamelled Reflectors. These goods were not accompanied by any central excise documents evidencing payment of duty. Therefore, the vehicle was detained and a search of the factory of M/s. Deluxe Enamel Industries, the respondent in the present case, was conducted, 57 pcs.of reflectors were found in the factory. As these goods were not recorded in the R.G. 1. register, they were also detained and subsequently seized as they were considered liable for confiscation. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent herein asking them to explain as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 9,01,302.51 should no...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shivaji Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT500TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the Tubular Steel Poles. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that there was no manufacturing involved in the activity of producing Tubular Steel Poles in the hands of the assessee. He had also observed at the same time that such Poles would be more appropriately classifiable under sub-heading No. 7306.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The respondents have prayed for decision on merits.2. We have heard Shri R.K. Sharma, SDR and have gone through the facts on record.Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bhubaneswar -1985 (21) E.L.T. 548 (Tribunal) had held that the Poles had a distinct name, character and use than the Pipes and Tubes. Generally the Pipe is understood in trade parlance as one intended for conveying fluids and pipeline is considered a long continuous line of piping to carry water or oil from an oil field or to carry solid material. The Tribunal in the context o...

Shri Vijay Singh Vs. Government of Nct and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant impugns Respondents' letter dated 27.11.1990 (Ann A-6), the I.O's Report dated 5.5.91 (Ann. A-7), the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 7.4.92 (Ann. A-11) and the Appellate Authority's order dated 13.11.92 (Ann. A-13) and prays for reinstatement with consequential benefits.2. Upon a compliant dated 17.2.90 received from one Shri B.S. Chauhan, resident of 1/351 Sadar Bazar. Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-110010 that applicant received Rs. 700/- from him to show favour to him by not taking any legal action in respect of a dispute between a truck driver and him, applicant was suspended by order dated 22.2.90 (Ann. A-1) and a Preliminary Enquiry under Rule 15(1) Delhi Police (P and A) Rules was ordered on 2.3.90 (Ann. A-2).3. As the P.E. reportedly substantiated the charges against the applicant of not taking legal action by misusing his official position and accepting illegal gratification and as the evidence and materials available on the file were not sufficient to prosecute t...

Renuka Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC393Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Renuka Cement Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrieved with the order dated 31-8-1995 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants manufacture Clinker which is captively used in the manufacture of cement. The clinker so used is exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 7/92-C.E., dated 1-3-1992. Two show cause notices dated 5-7-1993 and 17-9-1993 were issued to them for demanding duty on the quantity of clinker not used in the manufacture of cement as the same was shown as material wasted or destroyed in their RT 5 Returns. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand of Rs. 35,043.50 P., holding that the Appellants had not used the quantity of clinker shown as wasted for the manufacture of cement; that the quantity shown wasted was never added in the quantity of total material used. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order confirmed the adjudication order, agreeing with the Assistant Collector th...

British Health Products India Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC806

1. These are twelve appeals. Appeal Nos. E/894 to 899 are filed against the Commissioner order No. 1/98-A, dated 8-1-98 and appeal Nos.1246-1251/98-A are filed against the Commissioner order Nos. 7/98, dated 13/17-2-98 respectively, involving the common issues and they are, therefore taken together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. By the respective impugned orders the Commissioner has confirmed the duty amount in addition to imposing penalty on the appellants from M/s.British Health Product India Ltd. and imposing penalties on the above appellants and the details are as follows :- 3. The appellants M/s. British Health Products India Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of P or P medicines and food products. During the material period the entire production has been sold by the appellants to M/s. Dabur India Ltd. According to the department, appellants M/s.British Health Products India Ltd. (BHPL) and M/s. Dabur India Ltd. (DIL) are related persons under Section 4(4)(c) ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dynomac Pumps

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT513TriDel

1. In these five appeals preferred by Revenue, arising out of common Order-in-Appeal dated 24-5-1996 issue involved is whether principle of unjust enrichment is applicable where the products in respect of which refund of duty is claimed has been captively consumed.2. When the matters were called, no one was present on behalf of any of the respondents in spite of notices. We therefore, heard Shri H.K.Jain, ld. SDR, and perused the records. Shri Jain submitted that M/s.Dynomac Pumps, respondent in Appeal No. E/1216/96-C, manufacture parts of pumps which were used captively in the manufacture of agricultural pumps. The other respondents manufactured HOPE tapes which were used in the manufacture of HDPE sacks; that duty paid on the intermediate product became part of the duty on manufacture of final product and as such incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyers, the principle of unjust enrichment applies and it does not make any difference whether the duty has been passed on direc...

S.i.P. Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(88)LC396Tri(Delhi)

1. This application filed by the appellants is for modification of Stay Order No. 20/99-BI dated 8.2.1999 passed by this Tribunal in Stay Application No. E/Stay/43/99-BI in the above appeal.2. The applicant filed the appeal against duty demand of Rs. 37,13,374/- on super enamelled copper winding wire and copper scrap and a penalty of an equal amount imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excises Act, 1944. The applicant also filed Misc. Application No.E/Stay/43/99-BI praying for waiver of predeposit, and stay of recovery, of the above amounts on the ground of very bad financial position. The Tribunal passed the aforesaid order dated 8.2.1999 after hearing both sides and considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, staying recovery on the condition that the amounts of Rs. 18 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs be deposited towards Central Excise duty and penalty respectively within a period of 12 weeks and making it clear that any non-compliance with the order shall result in ...

Mineral Oil Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC640Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Mineral Oil Corporation is whether the process of reclamation of transformer oil from used transformer oil amounts to manufacture so as to attract levy of duty of excise.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants manufacture virgin transformer oil. They are also engaged in the reclamation of duty paid used transformer oil on their own account out of used transformer oil purchased from the market and also on job work basis out of used transformer oil received from U.P. State Electricity Board (UPSEB). The Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur, under the impugned order dated 24-12-1996, confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,30,246.10 on the reclaimed transformer oil cleared during the period from 24-3-1996 to 30-6-1996 after classifying the reclaimed transformer oil under sub-heading 2710.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, holding that manufacture is a process of converting some materia...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lumel Shades (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT665TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended in a case where the manufacturer is clearing excisable goods falling under more than one heading of the Tariff. The respondents, M/s. Lumel Shades (P) Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Venation Blinds classifiable under Sub-heading No. 616.90 of the Tariff and also Cotton/man-made fabrics blinds classifiable under Sub-heading No. 6301.00 during the period February, 1990 and March, 1990. Their value of clearances had exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs taking clearances under both the sub-headings together and the Asstt.Collector of Central Excise demanded duty of Rs. 2,258/-. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals'!, Bombay referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Premier Rubber & Trades v. C.C.E. - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 304 (Tribunal) and held that within the overall value of first clearances upto Rs. 30 lakhs, t...