Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 22 of about 321 results (0.015 seconds)Greysham and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT350TriDel
2. The appellants herein are manufacturing the railway parts falling under Tariff Sub-heading 8607.00. The raw material used for the manufacture of these parts are steel and pig iron on which the appellants are availing the benefit of Modvat credit. The process involved in the manufacture of such railway parts includes forging, machining, boring, turning, threading and grinding etc. Some of these processes are undertaken through various job workers to whom the raw material i.e. steel and pig iron are sent for such processes.3. The appellants are having the permission under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for sending the inputs to their job workers after taking Modvat credit on their own. It is not disputed that in the course of manufacturing the railway parts, waste and scrap arises in the appellants' factory or in the job workers' factories. It however appears that the appellants did not clear the waste and scrap from their factory, so arisen, on payment of duty or did not...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT604TriDel
1. The appellants herein imported 78 bales of old and used synthetic garments from USA during February, 1994. The Bills of Entry were assessed to duty on second appraisement basis classifying them under Customs Heading 6310.90 as "Completely Pre-mutilated Synthetic/Woolen rags" allowed to be imported without licence as per the provisions of the Export Import Policy 1992-97. Examination of the goods revealed that only 11 bales contained pre-mutilated rags while the remaining 67 bales valued at Rs. 9,02,427/- were found to contain serviceable non-mutilated used clothes. The value declared in the invoice i.e. Rs. 5,20,847/- did not appear to be correct transaction value.2. The Adjudicating authority confiscated the goods with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,25,000/- and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1,13,000/-. The Lower Appellate Authority set aside the Original authority's order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. The Adjudicating Authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Funskool (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC686
1. The appellants in the instant case are manufacturers of 'Chutes & Ladders', 'Game of Life', 'Checkers + 5', 'Chinese Checkers' and 'Chess'. They started paying duty under protest. The dispute arose about classification of these items. The appellants claimed that the items are classifiable under Chapter Heading 9503 as "other toys or puzzles of all kinds" or under Chapter sub-heading 9506.00 as "other sports" whereas the Department held that the products manufactured by the appellants were appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 95.04.2. Shri Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the goods manufactured by the appellants are "other toys or puzzles of all kind" under Chapter sub-heading 9503.00 or under Chapter sub-heading 9506.00 as "other Sports". He submitted that the appellants had submitted two affidavits of the dealer stating that the product manufactured by the appellants are not Parlour games but they can be categories as Toys o...
Tag this Judgment!Prayag Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT227TriDel
"Appellant desired the classification under Chapter 3926 read with Notification No. 53/86. Chapter 3925 relates to builders ware of plastic not elsewhere classified. I agree with the classification of the Department to these goods under Chapter 3925 which is more specific whereas the appellant desired the classification of general nature. In view of this, the goods cleared under Chapter 3925 will be dutiable and also includible in the value of clearances for availing of SSI benefits under Notification No. 1/93. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 1,60,185/- is justified".2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of different type of various items of plastic. These items were being manufactured through injection moulding process. Such moulded goods were then processed and subjected to finishing. The appellants were filing declaration under Rule 174A and when examined Revenue found that various items were classifiable under different chapter headi...
Tag this Judgment!Surginova Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT349TriDel
1. The appellants have filed Restoration Application. Ld. Counsel Sh.S.J. Vyas explains that the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance, while the appellant had made the deposit and had also written to the Registry in this regard. He, therefore, seeks restoration of the appeal. Ld. DR Sh. V.M. Udhoji has no objection. The restoration application is accordingly allowed and the appeal is taken up for disposal.2. The appellants manufacture Plaster of Paris and sell under the brand name "CADILA". They were denied the benefit of Small Scale Exemption as available under Notification No. 175/86 on the ground that the brand name belonged to another person who was not entitled to the small scale exemption. Arguing the appeal today ld. Counsel Sh. S.J. Vyas submits that the appellants had purchased the brand name from M/s. Cadila Laboratories Limited. The brand name has also been subsequently transferred in the records of the Trade Marks Registry with effect from 28-2-1990, that is prior to th...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT360TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur at New Delhi.3. The short point to be considered in this case is whether Capacitor and Reactor are considered to be eligible capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules to avail Modvat credit.4. Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate submitted that the issue involved herein has been concluded by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Coimbatore reported in 1999 (32) RLT 379. He also relied upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Cement v. C.C.E., Raipur reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 354 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that switch panels being device for regulating electric supply, is an accessory in the form of capital goods essential for proper working of machine and for production of goods. He submitted that a controlling panel of this item is not in dispute as...
Tag this Judgment!Super Delicacies Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(89)LC538Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned three (3) Appeals, along with Miscellaneous Applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The point for determination in the captioned 3 appeals is the same i.e. Whether an assessee using a brand name of another manufacturer, who is not manufacturing the same product, is entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 175/86.3. The Id. Counsel was first asked to argue the Miscellaneous Applications. The Miscellaneous Applications are about urging an additional ground. The additional ground is to argue the case in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Taj Serpent Eggs Factory v. CCE Madurai 1998 (85) ELT 78, The Id. SDR has no objection.4. We considered the submissions. We find that it is only a citation.We, therefore, accept the reliance on the citation and allow the Miscellaneous Applications.5. The facts of the case, shortly put, are that the Appellants are manufacturing Dant Manjan (Ayurvedic), clas...
Tag this Judgment!Knit Foulds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC680
1. This Appeal has been filed by M/s. Knit Foulds Pvt. Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24.9.91 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Chandigarh.2.1 The facts in brief are that the Appellants had claimed exemption from payment of duty of excise in respect of leather belting, leather Nylon Sand-witch belting, leather goods, i.e. leg guards, leather laces, gloves leathers, upholstery, drawing leather, Hides in dressed states, industrial leather, combing leather, Gill box leather, leather Nylon, Nylon condensor Tapes under Notification No. 115/75-CE dated 30.4.75 being products of goods manufactured in a factory of tanning industry. The Assistant Collector passed the following four orders: 2.2 Under Order dated 30.4.81, the Assistant Collector denied the exemption under Notification No.115/75 to goods except Hides in dressed state and other industrial leathers. He disallowed the exemption under Notification No. 105/80 to the goods falling under item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Exc...
Tag this Judgment!Marigold Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC675
Under Stay Order No. S/04/98/-D dated 20.1.98, the Tribunal had directed the appellants M/s. Marigold Papers Pvt. Ltd. to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs on or before 31.3.98. It was made clear that non-compliance will result in dismissal of the appeal. The matter was to come up for reporting compliance on 16.4.98.2. The appellants filed petition in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and in pursuance of the directions of the High Court, the stay was reheard on 31.12.98. Under Stay Order No 13/99-D dated 22.1.99 , in place of Rs. 15 lakhs , the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of that order.3. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for modification of the revised stay order dated 21.1.99 and the matter was heard on 24.6.99 . The Tribunal took into account all the relevant facts and circumstances and did not find any merit in the request for modification but in the interest of justice, two weeks time from the date of heari...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. G.E.i. Engg. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT355TriDel
1. The short point to be considered in this case is whether jib crane can be considered as eligible capital goods to avail Modvat credit 2. Following the series of decision of the Tribunal the Commissioner (Appeals) held that any machinery/equipment used for handling the raw materials and final product inside the factory during the process of manufacture is capital goods and that not only such machines but any components, spare parts and accessory etc. of such machines which help or assist in the process of manufacture are also capital goods eligible for credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.3. Arguing for the Revenue, Shri Y.R. Kilania, learned JDR submits that this item in question cannot be considered as capital goods. In this context, he relied on para 10 of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Coimbatore reported in 1999 (32) RLT 379. Para 10 is as under : - Para 16 (iii) of the circular issued along with the Budget 1995 which is r...
Tag this Judgment!