Delhi Court June 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 8 of about 122 results (0.022 seconds)Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Anupam Engineering Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT497TriDel
1. These are three appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad. The respondents are M/s. Anupam Engineering Works.2. When the matter was called no one appeared for the respondents. As it is an old matter in which the show cause notice was issued in the year 1990, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing, Shri R.K. Sharma, learned SDR.3. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned SDR submitted that the appellants had manufactured the excisable goods on behalf of their principal, M/s.Elecon Engg. Co. Limited. During the relevant time, a higher notional credit was available when the goods were supplied by the small scale assessees. M/s. Elecon supplied the raw material to the appellants and appellants returned the intermediate goods manufactured by them in place of following the procedure under Rule 57F. The appellants paid Central Excise duty and in this process, M/s. Elecon got a higher notion...
Tag this Judgment!Century Laminating Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC517Tri(Delhi)
1. These are appeals which were referred to the Larger Bench of this Tribunal for deciding the issue of the correct classification of Hydraulic Press Plates (Imported). The question had arisen whether they were classifiable as 'moulds', as contended by the asses- . sees, and fell under Tariff Heading 84.60 or as Stainless Steel Plates/Sheets falling under Heading 73.15 as contended by the Department. By its decision in Appeal No. C/2323/85-B2 (Appeal filed by M/s. Paras Laminates Ltd., Delhi against Order-in-Original Nos. S/131-49/85, dated 16-8-1985) a Bench of this Tribunal disagreed with the views expressed by the majority of another Bench of the Tribunal in the earlier case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. v. C.C., Bombay reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 240.Since Revenue had taken up the matter in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Bakelite Hylam Ltd. Order of the Tribunal, references made to the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in all the above mentioned matters were kept in abeyanc...
Tag this Judgment!Vardhman Spinning and General Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT168TriDel
1. This appeal of M/s. Vardhman Spinning and General Mills Ltd. is directed against Order-in-Original No. 24/ADC/CE/90, dated 19-6-1990 of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The impugned order has demanded duty of Rs. 1,89,344.60 on 4351 kgs. of special yarn of trade name "Garden", "Day and Night" and "Sunshine" and 5859 kgs. of chenile yarn 100% acrylic. The order also demands duty of Rs. 46,490.76 which was short paid on 8350 kgs. of chenile yarn 100% cotton. Further, the order has imposed redemption fine of Rs. 10,000.00 with regard to 409 kgs. of yarn which was found unaccounted and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 on the appellants.2. The proceedings in the instant case are the result of stock taking in the appellants' factory on 13-9-1988 and subsequent investigations.The stock taking revealed that there was excess stock in five varieties of special yarn weighing 1586 kgs. which were not entered in the RG 1 register maintained by the appellants. Scrutiny of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kwality Ice Cream Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT57TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is about the availability of benefit of Notification No. 175/86 in respect of Ice Cream manufactured and sold under the brand name 'Kwality' by the appellants.2. Shri A.P. Mathur, ld. Advocate, submitted at the out set that he is only pressing the point of limitation under Section 11A or the Central Excise Act. He submitted that the entire demand is time barred as the show cause notice was issued on 13-7-1992 for demanding the duty for the period from 20-3-1990 to 31-10-1991. The entire period of demand is beyond the normal period of six months as specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. He further mentioned that the Central Excise duty was imposed by Budget of 1990 with effect from 20-3-1990.Immediately, the Range Superintendent, under letter dated 27-3-1990, asked them to clear the goods on payment of duty as they were using the brand name 'Kwality' pertaining to other unit. The matter was disputed by them. Ld. Advocate contended that ...
Tag this Judgment!Superfine Wire Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT709TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Superfine Wire Industries, the matter relates to the classification of the Copper Hot Dip Tinned Wire. The appellants had claimed the classification under Heading No. 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff while the Department had taken a view that the said wire was classifiable under Heading No. 74.05 of the Tariff.2. When the matter was called no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for today's hearing had been issued on 23-4-1999. There is no request for any adjournment. It is an old appeal in which the matter relates to the year 1986 onwards. We, therefore, proceed to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri M.P. Singh, learned JDR.3. There is no dispute that the goods in question were copper wire which had been tinned. The appellants had described their wire as the Copper Hot Dip Tinned Wire. The process of tinning was to prevent oxidation of Copper. The learned Collector of Central Excise, Bombay had observed that the process of tinnin...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Processors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT706TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. A.S. Processors, is whether Central Excise duty is payable on plastic tubes falling under Heading 39.17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, coming into existence at intermediate stage of the manufacture of plastic bags.2. Shri Jitender Singh, ld. Advocate, submitted that they are clearing the plastic bags, falling under Heading 39.23 of the Central Excise Tariff at nil rate of duty by availing exemption under Notification No.15/94, dated 1-3-1994 (Sl. No. 21). The condition for availing the nil rate of duty on plastic bags was that the Modvat credit of the duty on the inputs has not been availed of by the manufacturer. If any manufacturer of plastic bags avails of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs, he has to pay duty @ 30 per cent under SI. No. 23 of the notification. He, further, mentioned that the Sl. Nos. 21 and 23 of Notification No. 15/94 have been placed therein keeping in view the interest of both manufacturer...
Tag this Judgment!Vapi Rubber Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT65TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by M/s. Vapi Paper Mills Ltd. is regarding availability of the benefit of Notification No.225/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986, as amended.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants manufacture paper and paper boards and articles made of paper. They availed of set off of the duty paid on the inputs, namely, alum, rosin, etc., under Notification No. 225/86, dated 3-4-1986. A show cause notice dated 22-7-1987 was issued to them for demanding amount of set off availed of by them in excess. The Assistant Collector, under order dated 15-12-1992, confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 1,05,057.75, holding that the set off of the duty was available only on the quantity consumed in one M.T. of final product and the appellants had utilised the set off in excess. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order, holding that a simple reading of the Notification revealed that exemption from payment of duty was restricted to the amount of equivalent ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Hans and anr. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC93Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi who has confiscated Maruti Car No. DBG-1901 (valued at Rs. 1 lakh) belonging to the appellants, from which computer parts of foreign origin valued at approximately Rs. 11 lakhs were recovered on 25.4.1996, with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 75,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on appellant No. 1 and Rs. 3 lakhs on appellant No. 2.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.4.1996, DRI officer searched the residence of one Sushil Kumar Verma at Vivek Vihar, Delhi, but nothing incriminating was recovered therefrom. After the completion of the search, Sushil Verma was interrogated about one white Ambassador car bearing Registration No. RSR-6009, which was found parked in the precincts of his residence and he stated that this car was sent to him on the same day by one Narain Agarwal of Shanti Vihar, Delhi and that the car driven by Vinod Kumar reached his house ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sarjoo Sahkari Chinni Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT391TriDel
1. These are five appeals filed by the Revenue involving the common issue, therefore, they are taken together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The short point is to be considered in all these cases is whether administrative charges collected by the State Government under the provisions of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhinium, 1964 is to be included in the assessable value of molasses cleared by the respondents.3. We find that the issue involved herein has already been considered and concluded by the Tribunal in a series of cases. The respondents' Counsel also produced the copy of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills (Order No. 35/99-A, dated 15-1-1999) 1999 (111) E.L.T. 762 (Tribunal).4. Shri K. Shiv Kumar, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue fairly concedes this position.5. Since the issue has already been concluded by the Tribunal, following the same we accept the contention of the party and accordingly, these five appeals filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Raj Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT715TriDel
1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi who has inter-alia confiscated tempo Nos. DDL 3701, DBL 2035 and DDL 5031 driven by them on 5-2-1994 on the ground that the vehicles were carrying contraband goods such as air-conditioners, microwave ovens, colour TVs and movie cameras, all of foreign origin, with option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs each and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on each of the appellants.2. We have heard Shri V.R. Sethi, learned Advocate and Shri H.K. Saran, learned SDR.3. We find that none of the 3 drivers have admitted that they had knowledge that they were carrying contraband. On the other hand, Satish Kumar and Joginder had stated that their tempos were engaged for hire by one Rajiv Sarin and while carrying the goods, the tempo was stopped by Customs Officers and that Rajiv Sarin produced some documents which was not accepted by the officers who, therefore, took the tempo and the goods, along...
Tag this Judgment!