Delhi Court June 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 7 of about 122 results (0.017 seconds)Prince Gutka Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT826TriDel
1. In this case, a duty demand of Rs. 61,73,803/- has been confirmed against appellant No. 1 on the ground that they had clandestinely manufactured and cleared Pan Masala from premises at Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar. A penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs has been imposed under the provisions of Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules. A penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs has been imposed on appellant No. 2 who is the Managing Director of Appellant No. 1.2. On hearing Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Shri Kamaljeet Singh, learned Counsel and Shri H.K. Saran, learned SDR and perusing the records, we find that the case of the Department is based on detailed evidence such as statements of Shri Sunil Khanna who in his second statement, recorded on 16-11-1994 has claimed that the unit where the activity was conducted, belonged to him and not to appellant No. 1 (which has been dis-believed by the Commissioner for the reason inter-alia that in his first statement recorded on 21-10-1994, h...
Tag this Judgment!Amco Batteries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC364Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of lead acid electric storage batteries and parts thereof (final products) falling under Tariff Heading 85.07 in their two factories. Lead in the form of ingots is the main raw material required for manufacture of the said parts.1.2 During the course of manufacture of the parts, certain quantities of waste and scrap (W & S) of lead are generated. W & S, so arising, is sent to the job workers who manufacture ingots out of that and send back those ingots to the appellants who use the same in manufacture of their final products.1.3 Proceedings were initiated by issuing two show-cause notices demanding duty. Allegations, in sum and substance, are as follows :- (a) The appellants had cleared from the factory W & S to the job workers without payment of duty and without following the central excise procedures, and (b) The appellants had not filed the classification list with regard to the clearance of W & S leading to suppress...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Eastern Electro Chem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC861Tri(Delhi)
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 11-3-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal.2. In the impugned order the benefit of Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986 was allowed in respect of M.S. castings which were used for the manufacture of Calcium Carbide.3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of calcium carbide carbon paste is filled in the M.S.casting through which current is passed and then it is lowered into the furnace when the carbon paste hardens and burns out in the furnace. The M.S. casting also gets melted and mixed up with other molten metal. The respondent gets duty-paid M.S. sheets from the market from which M.S.casting are made within the factory for captive use. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent stating therein that the benefit of Notification 217/86-C.E. was not available on M.S. casting. The adjudicating authority confirmed the show cause notice but on ap...
Tag this Judgment!Srf Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC314Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeals arise out of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad who has upheld two separate adjudication orders of the Assistant Collector who had disallowed Modvat credit on Tri Eth-ylene Glycol (TEG) and Tungsten wire on the ground that these two items are not inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules 1944.Both items form the subject matter of appeal No.E/3082/98-NB while the subject matter of appeal No.E/3083/98-NB is only TEG.2. The appellants are represented by Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate who contends that TEG is used to clear the filter through which polyester film melt is filtered during the process of conversion of melt polymer, as TEG has properties to dissolve in polyester polymer and clear the dust and TEG is, therefore, essential for the process of manufacture. They contend that Tungsten wire is used to ionise the air between "chill roll" and molten polymer and gives a sticky action to the chill roll and if it is not used molten poly...
Tag this Judgment!Amco Batteries Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC730
1.1 The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of lead acid electric storage batteries and parts thereof (final products) falling under Tariff Heading 85.07 in their two factories. Lead in the form of ingots is the main raw material required for manufacture of the said parts.1.2 During the course of manufacture of the parts, certain quantities of waste and scrap (W & S) of lead are generated. W & S, so arising, is sent to the job workers who manufacture ingots out of that and send back those ingots to the appellants who use the same in manufacture of their final products.1.3 Proceedings were initiated by issuing two show-cause notices demanding duty. Allegations, in sum and substance, are as follows: (a) The appellants had cleared from the factory W & S to the job workers without payment of duty and without following the central excise procedures, and (b) The appellants had not filed the classification list with regard to the clearance of W & S leading to suppressio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Majestic Auto Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT327TriDel
1. The short point to be considered in this appeal is whether the excess amount collected as freight and insurance is to be added in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act.2. The Asst. Collector has taken a view that since the goods have been exported under bond and no duty is leviable, the deductions under Section 4 towards equalised freight shall not be allowable. Similarly, for specially made vehicle to transport these two wheelers from Ghaziabad to Bombay port freight deductions has been allowed only one way on the ground that this vehicle is owned by the party. Deductions towards insurance has been disallowed on the ground that appellant did not submit details. The Collector (Appeals) observed in his order that the order of the adjudicating authority is illegal and improper. The party had submitted all the details in support of the claim. He observed that if the goods are exported in bond, there is no question of levying any duty, and confirming duty of Rs. 15,35,8347- a...
Tag this Judgment!Flex Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT348TriDel
1. The appeal is against Order-in-Appeal dated 22-1-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad affirming the Order-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority on the question of Modvatability of HSD Oil. The adjudicating authority had disallowed Modvat credit on HSD Oil as input to the tune of Rs. 3,58,448/- holding that HSD Oil was non-Modvatable under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the aforesaid order dated 22-1-1999 affirmed this finding and rejected the appellant's plea that Modvat credit on HSD Oil was admissible under Rule STB by virtue of the non obstante clause of this rule. Appellant is before the Tribunal on the same ground as raised before the lower appellate authority.2. I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, Authorised Representative of the appellant and Shri Y.R. Kilania, learned }DR for the respondent in the said application.3. The learned Representative of the appellant submits that the issue involved in the appeal is cov...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Raymond Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT249TriDel
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 25/26-8-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that starter coil and coils are eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit as capital goods even prior to 16-3-1995.2. Learned DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue submits that starter coil and coils are the part of electrical transformers and at the relevant time Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules does not cover these items. Therefore, these are not entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit. He submits that the definition of capital goods were expanded by Notification No. 11/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 and by Notification No.14/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.3. Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Assistant Manager (Excise) appearing on be- 3 half of the respondents submits that the issue involved in this case is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Jaw...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Drawing and Equipment
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT454TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of filing cabinets and plan filing cabinets. Some other items were also involved in the appeal filed by M/s. Indian Drawing & Equipment Industries before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) with which, however, we are not concerned. The learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had classified both the filing cabinets and the plan filing cabinets under Heading No. 83.04 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras (Division in) who had adjudicated the matter had classified both these items under sub-Heading No. 9403.00.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents. The notice for today's hearing had been received back undelivered by the postal authorities with the remarks that no one was there at the given address. Earlier also, the notice had been received back undelivered when the matter was fixed for hearing on 13-4-1999. The notice w...
Tag this Judgment!Vee Bee Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC376Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals are involving common question of law and facts. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The matter relates to the classification of the Card Cans and parts thereof. The appellants had sought classification thereof under sub-heading No. 8448.00 as accessories of textile machinery, the textile machinery being classifiable under Heading No. 84.45 of the Central Excise Tariff. They had also sought the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86-CE., dated 1-3-1986. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad had ruled out the classification of the Card cans or silver cans as parts or accessories of textile machinery and had held that the same were classifiable as articles of plastics or articles of aluminium under sub-heading No. 3926.90 or 7616.90 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff.3. When the matter was called no one appeared for the appellants. As the matter is very old in which the show cause notices were issued in t...
Tag this Judgment!