Delhi Court June 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Wearwell Tyre and Tubes (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC71Tri(Delhi)
1. These are six appeals. Two appeal has been filed by M/s. Wearwell Tyres & Tubes Limited against the demand of duty and alleged clearance of green tyres in the garb of tread rubber sheets, etc. Four appeals have been filed against Modvat credit by M/s. Verma Tyres, M/s. Devi Tyres and M/s. S.K. Tyres. Since all the four appeals arise out of the same common order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that M/s. Wearwell Tyres are engaged in the manufacture of tyres. M/s. Verma Tyres, M/s. Devi Tyres and M/s. S.K. Tyres also manufacture tyres. All the four appellants were availing Modvat facility and had filed declarations to that effect under Rule 57G. The factory of these four appellants are adjacent to each other. The brand name of tyres manufactured by M/s.Wearwell Tyres is Wearwell. M/s. Verma Tyres, Devi Tyres and S.K. Tyres are also manufacturing tyres with brand name Wearwell. During the visit of...
P.D. Sarawagi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT185TriDel
1. In these five appeals filed by five appellants against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 20-2-1992 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, the matter relates to the classification of the Tea Chest Metal Fittings. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, had held that the Tea Chest Metal Fittings were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 8302.00 of the Central Excise Tariff as in force during the year 1989-90.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for today's hearing had been issued on 21-4-1999 and had been received by the appellants on different dates in the month of April, 1999 itself as per acknowledgement cards on record. As the matter is old in which the show cause notices were issued in the year 1991, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri M.P. Singh, JDR.3. We have carefully considered the matter. The appellants had claimed the classification of the Tea Chest Metal Fitti...
Ajay Metachem Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT145TriDel
1. Both the appeals are filed against a common order-in-appeal and are, therefore, being taken up together for disposal.2. The appellants made a request to decide the appeals on merits.Therefore, the appeals are being taken up in the absence of the appellants.3. In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise held that Notification No. 178/85-C.E., dated 1-8-1985 will come into force from 1-4-1985.4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Item 68 of the erstwhile tariff and availed the benefit of Notification No. 46/81, dated 1-3-1981. The Notification No. 46/81, dated 1-3-1981 exempts the goods from payment of central excise duty falling under Item 68 of the erstwhile tariff other than the goods manufactured in a factory. The Notification 46/81 was superseded by the Notification 178/85, dated 1-8-1985, which provided exemption up to Rs. 20 lakh in a financial year, for the goods manufactured in such factory. Th...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT445TriDel
1. The Revenue's appeal is against the decision in the impugned order that the appellants are not liable to pay duty at the wadding stage when they manufacture blankets.2. Shri V.M. Udhoji, learned JDR reiterated the points made in the appeal of the Revenue.3. Countering the arguments of the Revenue, learned Counsel Shri M.H.Patil submitted for the respondents, that in the manufacturing process carried out by the respondents a stage of manufacture of wadding does not arise. He explained that polyester fibres are placed in layers on both sides of grey fabric and are needle punched to produce felt. They pay duty on the felt so manufactured and blankets are exempt from duty.He submits that placing of layers of fibres on cloth so as to make them ready for needle punching is no manufacturing process at all. He explained that waddings are manufactured by placing layers of fibre one over the other and compressing them so as to impart to them certain strength. No compressing is carried out in...
Rajasthan Spg. and Wvg. Mills Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT165TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. is whether capital goods credit is available under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules in respect of (i) Frequency Converter, (ii) Motor Protection Switch and (iii) ACB 2500 Amp.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Assistant Commissioner under order dated 29-11-1996, disallowed the capital goods credit to the appellants, holding that frequency converter was used for converting A.C. into D.C. or less frequencies and vice versa; that Motor protection switches were used for switching the electrical apparatus and ACB was used for protecting the electrical circuit; that these goods had no role to play directly or indirectly in the manufacture of the final product. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the adjudication order in respect of these goods on the ground that these goods were received in November - December, 1995, that is, prior to the issuance of Notification No. 14/96 (N.T...
J.K. State Financial Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT343TriDel
1. The appellant herein is the financier of vehicle No. JK-02-7357 which has been confiscated absolutely by the adjudicating authority, for being used for transporting the ball bearings of foreign origin concealed in the truck, recovered on 2-1-1997 at Sitapur Road.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, ld. Advocate submits that the appellant is the owner of the vehicle and that all the payments have not been made by the person who availed the loan namely, Chuni Lal, who expired before the passing of the impugned order and that the corporation is entitled to seize the vehicle during the currency of the loan in case of non-payment of dues or in case of deficiency it can be recovered from the borrower. He submits that although the SCN was issued to the appellant and reply was filed explaining the position of the financier, the appellant was not given an opportunity of personal hearing by the Commissioner. This was due to the fact that the notice of hearing fixed for 23-10-1997, although issued on 9-10...
Prakash Fabricators and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT690TriDel
1. These are five appeals filed by M/s. Prakash Fabricators & Galvanizers Pvt. Limited. Under Miscellaneous Order No. 79/99-B1, dated 29-4-1999, the cause title has been changed to M/s. JSL Refractories Limited.2. We have heard Shri S.U. Jagesha, learned Consultant for the appellants. Shri R.D. Negi, learned Senior Departmental Representative is present for the respondent Revenue.3. The matter relates to the fabrication of parts of transmission tower by the appellants from the raw materials supplied by M/s. Jyoti Structurals Limited. The appellants were availing the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and during the relevant time when the goods were procured from the small scale unit, a higher notional credit was available to the customers, in this case, M/s. Jyoti Structurals Limited who had supplied raw materials.4. Both the sides agreed that similar matter between the same parties for earlier period had come up before the Tribunal in the appellan...
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)73ITD109(Delhi)
1. This is assessee's appeal directed against the order of CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi dated 4-3-1993 relating to assessment year 1989-90 and following grounds have been raised : "1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law, in not allowing a deduction of Rs. 71,204 in respect of sales tax written off, instead in restoring the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing deduction for Rs. 51,168 in respect of security deposit forfeited, written off in the books of the appellant, or either business loss or short-term capital loss. 2.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing inter alia that there was no transfer of any asset'." 2. At the time of hearing it was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that assessee does not want to press ground No. 1 of the appeal as this issue was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consider...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Amrish Electricals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC751
1. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the respondents Shri Bipin Garg raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Reference Application on the ground that it does not arise out of the final order passed in terms of Section 35C, against which alone a Reference application can be filed in terms of Section 35G, but it arises out of a order passed in terms of second proviso to Section 35B and the Tribunal has declined to admit the appeal for the reasons recorded in its order.2. The learned DR, Shri Nunthuk submits that the question of law namely as to whether the Gate passes issued prior to 1-4-1994 but endorsed subsequently before 30-6-1994, has already been referred to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court by the Western Zonal Bench in the case of Moosa Hazi Patrawala and therefore, the question of law framed in this application, requires to be referred to the jurisdictional High Court.3. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and see substantial force in the sub...
Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT379TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules is available in respect of the amount of duty paid on the packing and forwarding charges collected in respect of the inputs.2. Shri M.P. Devnath, ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that M/s. Eveready Industries Ltd. manufacture Torches, flashlights and avail of Modvat credit under rule 57A in respect of aluminium brass and plastics, steel sheets and other raw materials; that they also availed capital goods credit under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules; that the Assistant Commissioner under adjudication order dated 27-8-1996 disallowed the Modvat credit on packing and forwarding charges holding that the Appellants have not made it known to the Department that whether the items brought in by them are generally supplied with or without packing; that on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order confirmed the adjudication order holding that since the pack...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »