Delhi Court June 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 9 of about 122 results (0.021 seconds)Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Kanara Wood and Plywood Indus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT59TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the amount of duty on the raw material which could not be utilised towards payment of duty on finished goods under Notification No. 225/86 is to be refunded in cash to the respondents M/s. Kanara Wood & Plywood Indus.2. The Respondents, under their letter dated 15-3-1999, have requested to decide the matter on merits. Shri Udhoji, learned DR, submitted that Notification No. 225/86 (as amended)-provided exemption from duty on final goods equivalent to the amount of duty paid on the specified raw materials used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product; that there was no provision for sanction of refund claim as notification provided only Set off of the duty paid on the raw material. He further submitted that the decision in the case of A.P.Paper Mills v. C.C.E., 1987 (27) E.L.T. 692 (Tribunal) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.3. The Respondents, in their letter dated 15-3-1997, ha...
Tag this Judgment!Mazgaon Containers and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT165TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Mazgaon Containers & Fabricators Pvt.Ltd., the matter relates to the duty liability on the waste and scrap arising out of the Iron and Steel sheets/strips/coils during the course of manufacture of metal containers. The appellants were bringing duty paid Iron and Steel sheets/strips/coils and were availing of the facility of Modvat credit. The Modvat credit so taken was utilised towards payment of Central Excise duty on metal containers. During the course of manufacture of metal containers, certain waste and scrap has arisen and while the Revenue had contended that such waste and scrap was to be cleared on payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 600/- per tonne the appellants have taken a view that the same was exempted under Notification No. 171/88-C.E.2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the appellants. The notice for today's hearing has been received back with the postal remarks "left". The notice was sent at address given by the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanu Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT936TriDel
1. Ld. Advocate Shri D.N. Mehta pointing out to the miscellaneous application listed today submits that new documents have been brought on record as also new grounds of appeal. Those documents cannot be said to be additional documents in the sense and they are part of the Customs House record of this case. He further fairly admits that new documents and the new facts/grounds mentioned in the miscellaneous application were not placed before the adjudicating authority.Nevertheless, he submits that they go to the root of the matter against the demand of duty. Consequently he submits that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority viz., Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Indore.2. Ld. SDR Shri Satnam Singh has no objection to the aforesaid suggestion of the ld. Advocate.3. We have gone through the impugned order as also the miscellaneous application. We find sufficient force in the submissions of the ld.Advocate. Consequently we set aside the im...
Tag this Judgment!Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT622TriDel
1. Case called. Heard both sides with reference to the appeal filed by the assessee.2. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that issue involved herein has been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the very party's case reported in 1999(31) RLT 5. In that case it was held that the activity of coal handling plant does not amount to manufacture.3. Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned SDR requests for some time to check up the position whether the Department has filed an appeal against the order referred to above. Request is not acceded to.4. Since the issue has already been considered and concluded by the Tribunal, following the same, we accept the contention of the appellant and accordingly appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any....
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Ptg. Co. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT873TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. The Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd., is whether the Central Excise duty is chargeable when the duty paid 100% Polyester yarn is converted into 100% spun polyester thread, both railing under Item 18E of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants. The notice of hearing sent to them was returned back by the Postal Authorities. Even the notice sent for hearing of the matter at the earlier date was also received back from the Postal Authorities.We, therefore, proceed to decide the matter after hearing Shri V.M.Udhoji, ld. JDR, and perusing the records.3. It has been submitted by the appellants that no duty can be extracted twice under the same Tariff item. They relied upon the decision of the Tribunal as reported in 1986 (23) E.L.T. 217. They also submitted that since the spun polyester yarn as well as sewing thread fall under the same Tariff item, duty cannot...
Tag this Judgment!Aero Exports Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC99Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Aero Exports have filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 24.11.1997 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Aero Exports, a merchant exporter, filed a shipping bill for export of 4184 dozen of Marble Composition Note Book weighing 19000 kgs. under Value Based Advance Licence Scheme (VBAL). On examination, the net weight of goods was found to be 13,556 kgs. which was admitted by Shri K.C. Dey, Manager of the appellants, who requested that the case be decided without issue of show cause notice and without any personal hearing. The Additional Commissioner, Customs, after hearing Shri Dey on 17.10.1996, adjudicated the matter and ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 113(i) and (ii) of the Customs Act with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 114 of the Customs Act, holding that the appellants...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC786Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in the present appeal filed by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is the relevant date for determination of rate of duty under Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants presented a Pre-Bill of Entry for home consumption for import of 54000 MTs of Crude Oil per vessel 'Lance Naik Karam Singh' on 19-3-1990. The Bill of Entry was assessed provisionally and provisional duty amounting to Rs. 5,72,40,000/- was paid by them. On account of the proposals in Budget for 1990-91, presented in Parliament on 19-3-1990, the rate of duty on Crude Oil was revised upward. The Customs Department issued a show cause notice dated 11-4-1990 demanding duty at the enhanced rate.Assistant Collector, under order dated 23-7-1990, confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,65,40,443/-, holding that the entry inward was not given to the vessel carrying the impugned crude oil on 19-3-1990; that the said vessel arrived on 19-3-1990 at 2...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. M. Vadilal and Co. (Ahmedabad) P.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT422TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by Revenue is whether the sample folder manufactured by M/s. Vadilal & Co. are classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90 or as products of printing industry under Chapter 49 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents, who, under their letter dated 15-12-1998, have requested to decide the matter on the basis of arguments submitted by them. We, therefore, heard Shri V.M. Udhoji, ld. JDR, and perused the records.The ld. JDR submitted that the impugned product is not a product of printing industry, as it is not used for any purpose of communication of knowledge; that "sample folders" are known in the market as sample folder, that the printed sample folders are used for keeping the samples of the cloth of the different companies; that what has been printed on sample folders is only indicating the name and details of the company manufacturing the product.3. The re...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sinter Plast Containers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC104Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by Revenue is whether the Ice Boxes manufactured by M/s. Sinter plast Containers are classifiable under sub-heading No. 3924.90 of schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as decided by the Collector (Appeals) or under sub-heading 94.03 as claimed by Revenue.2. The facts in brief are that the Respondents in their Classification lists dated 25-7-1991 and 1-3-1992 classified their product "Polythylene tanks insulated with Rigid Polyurethane foam upto 300 litres capacity" under sub-heading 3925.99 of CETA and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 54/88 dated 1-3-1988 The product was cleared by them under the description "Insulated container" having capacity less than 25 litres. The Assistant Collector classified the product under sub-heading 9403.00 and confirmed the demand of duty issued under four show cause notices, holding that the product was nothing but ice box and as per Explanatory Note of HSN Ice boxes (not equipped or designed to co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. H.P.C.L.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC438Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the Refrigeration Compressor Oil, manufactured by the Respondents M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), is classifiable as Lubricating Oil under sub-heading 2710.60 as decided by the Collector (Appeals) or under sub-heading 2710.99 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as claimed by the Revenue.2. Briefly stated the facts are the M/s. HPCL manufactured, Refrigeration Compressor Oil in their Lube Plant-1 and claimed classification under sub-heading 2710.60 of CETA and claimed exemption under Notification No. 120/84, dated 11-5-1984. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, in order dated 28-6-1990, classified the impugned product under sub-heading 2710.99, holding that as per the Test Report the percentage of mineral oil was more than 70%, the flash point was more than 94C; that the impugned product was primarily meant to be used as refrigeration oil and if at all the same performed lubrica...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »