Delhi Court June 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 6 of about 122 results (0.019 seconds)i.T.i. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT350TriDel
1. In Appeal No. 1729/95, amount of duty involved is Rs. 2,28,25,389.23 P and in Appeal No. 1730/95, the duty amount is Rs. 2,33,06,345.97 P.The applicants seek waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the above amounts. The above amounts have been sought to be recovered on the ground that the appellants had taken these amounts of credit beyond the period of six months from the date of receipt of inputs and therefore, contravention of provisions of Rule 57G was alleged and the notices were issued in terms of Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and demands confirmed.2. The learned Counsel Shri Lakshmi Kumaran submits that Rule 57G, as it stood during the material period, did not prescribe any time limit for taking Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs. He cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Antarctic Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh 1997 (92) E.L.T. 369 in which it has been held that credit has to be taken within a reasonable time an...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Technologicals Institute
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC886Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules is available in respect of winding wires of copper used for rewinding the electric motor which in turn was used to run the spinning machines and in respect of spare parts of static converter.2. Shri Y.R. Kilania, learned D.R., submitted that Assistant Commissioner had disallowed the capital goods credit in Adjudication Order dated 13.7.1997 holding that winding wires were used for repairing electric motors which themselves did not bring about any change in the manufacture of yarn; that similarly static converter was used to convert Alternating Current into Direct Current and as such did not bring about any change in the final product; that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the capital goods credit on winding wires and static converter following the decision in CCE, Meerut v. Modi Xerox 1996 (86) ELT 530 (T). He, further, submitted that both the impugned ite...
Tag this Judgment!Poultek Engineers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT348TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Poultek Engineers, the matter relates to the classification of the goods poultry keeping cages and the eligibility to the benefit of Notification No. 111/88-C.E. In the show cause notice dated 19-2-1992 the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore had demanded Central Excise duty of Rs. 9,52,633.50 for the period 1988-91. The adjudicating authority taking note of the fact that the classification issue was settled by the trade notice issued in October, 1990 restricted the demand for the period on and after 8-10-1990. The demand of Rs. 64,330.20 was confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed.2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the appellants. The notice for today's hearing has been issued on 21-4-1999 and the notice had been duly received by the appellants on 26-4-1999 as per acknowledgement on record. As this is an old matter in which the show cause notice was issued in the year 1992, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hindalco Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC755
1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by the Revenue is whether Central Excise duty is chargeable on Aluminium Dross and furnace dug out material.2. Shri Sumit K. Das, ld. DR submitted that the impugned goods are classifiable under Heading 26.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. These goods are also marketable as the respondents have sold the same to the customers. Accordingly the Central Excise duty is leviable on the impugned goods.3. Shri P. Sridhar, ld. Advocate, submitted that for an earlier period, the issue has been decided by the Appellate Tribunal in their own case reported in [1996 (86) E.L.T. 571 (Tribunal)]; that the said decision was followed by the Collector (Appeals) for passing the impugned order allowing their appeal. He also submitted that while deciding the matter in their favour, the Appellate Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Indian Aluminium Co.Ltd. 4. We have considered the submissions...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Dye Stuff Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC425Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents herein filed a classification list No. 23/89-90 w.e.f. 20-3-1990 for their product "steam" falling under sub-heading 2851.00 of the CETA, 1985, claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986 as amended. They also filed a declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 claiming credit of duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of "steam" viz.Sulphuric Acid 98%, Ammonia Gas, Caustic Soda flakes and Sodium Sulphide, all falling under Chapter 28. The Assistant Collector vide his letter dated 23-8-1990 communicated to the assessees that "Steam" is neither an input nor an intermediate product in any of the manufacturing process declared by the assessees and such exemption under Notification 217/86, dated 2-4-1986 as amended is not available.But the said product is exempted under Notification 31/89, dated 1-3-1989. Necessary changes have been made in the body of the said classification list and one copy of the approved class...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Bansal and ors. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC82Tri(Delhi)
1. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating authority has inter alia imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri Pawan Bansal (Appellant No. 1) and Rs. 25,000/- each on Shri Rajiv Sarin (Appellant No. 2) and Smt.Meena Sarin (Appellant No. 3) under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for their involvement in smuggling of consumer goods of foreign origin valued at Rs. 13.72 lakhs (which were recovered on 5.2.1994 from three tempos, two near Mangolpuri and one in Rohini) into India in contravention of the prohibitions imposed by Exim Policy 1992-97 notified under Section 3(2) and Section 4 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and in contravention of Sections 77 and 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules, 1978. The Commissioner of Customs has absolutely confiscated the seized goods and has also confiscated Maruti Car No. DNA 1992 (claimed by Mrs.Meena Sarin) valued at Rs. 1.5 lakhs seized on 5.2.1994 in Rohini, with option to redeem the same on pay...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Teknic Controls
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT153TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the goods described as Pilot Light. In the show cause notice dated 2-3-1990, the issue for consideration was the eligibility of the product to the benefit of Notification No. 160/86-C.E. The classification under sub-heading No. 8536.90 was proposed in the show cause notice confirmed by the adjudicating authority and also confirmed by the appellate authority. The adjudicating authority had denied the benefit of Notification No. 160/86 but the Collector of Central (Appeals) had held that the goods in question were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 160/86-C.E.2. In the appeal, the Revenue had pleaded that the goods were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 85.31 of the Central Excise Tariff as visual signalling apparatus.3. The respondents have prayed for decision on merits. They have submitted that the Department had all along classified the Pilot Light under sub-heading No. 8536.90 and th...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Precision Alloys
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC644Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the respondents are M/s.Precision Alloys and the matter relates to the duty liability on the products obtained by the process of casting and referred to in the show cause notice dated 16.8.1988 as bars/rods. The goods in question were obtained at an intermediate stage by casting, in the sand moulds, of the molten alloy of copper and nickel for captive consumption in the process of manufacture of resistance wire. Under show cause notice dated 16.8.1988 Central Excise Duty of Rs, 29,960/- was demanded. Penal provisions were also invoked. In reply to the show cause notice, the noticees submitted that the so-called bars/rods emerging at an intermediate stage in the process of manufacture of resistance wires were not the bars/rods as understood in the trade, as specified in the ISI specifications and as defined in the Central Excise Tariff. They were also not marketable as such. Before the adjudicating authority, it was pleaded that the goods under, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ece Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC228Tri(Delhi)
1. Captioned appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing the order passed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) ordered the recovery of Rs. 15,93,833/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on the appellants.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants manufacture electrical transformers. The appellants had been receiving back the defective electrical transformers into the factory for repair within and beyond warranty/guarantee period under Rule 173H. During the course of P.B.C. checks of various forms maintained by the appellants under Rule 173H, it was observed that during the period 1-6-1989 to 25-11-1992, the appellants had availed Modvat credit on the inputs which were used for repairs by the defective transformers received back by them for repair without reversing Modvat credit and clearing such repaired transformers without payment of duty. The entries in Form-V register were kept blank. Separate accounts were not maintained showing the quantit...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Narayan Steel Industries Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT453TriDel
1. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants, M/s.Lakshmi Narayan Steel Industries. The notice for today's hearing had been issued on 23-4-1999 and had been duly received by the appellants on 5-5-1999. There is no request for adjournment. As the matter is very old in which the duty had been demanded for the year 1985-90, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri M.P.Singh, JDR.2. The matter relates to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988. Under that exemption notification, the re-rolling scrap was not one of the eligible inputs. The appellants have brought scrap and had availed of the benefit of the Notification No. 202/88 without obtaining any Central Excise licence, without observing any Central Excise formalities in violation of the provisions of the law.3. The appellants had pleaded that the scrap brought by them from outside was fit for re-rolling and they did not have any melting facility and thus it shoul...
Tag this Judgment!