Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 29 of about 321 results (0.014 seconds)Blue Star Enterprises Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC277
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 45/ 95 (Coll.) dated 13-6-95 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Culcutta.2. It was charged that the appellants have imported used diesel engines unauthorisedly and made an attempt to evade customs duty to the tune of Rs. 3,31,000. The Collector who adjudicated the Order confirmed the show cause notice ordering absolute confiscation in addition to imposing personal penalty of Rs. 1,50,000.3. Arguing for the appellants Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, learned Advocate submitted that the order suffers from denial of natural justice inasmuch as the submissions/plea made by the appellants were not considered apart from no evidence is placed on record in support of confirmation of the show cause notice. He also submitted that this very issue has come up for consideration before the Tribunal in party's own case as , wherein it was held that there was no valid reason for rejecting the transaction value. He ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT622TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the findings of the Commissioner holding that "The representation dated 12-3-1998 made by the assessee for determination of duty liable under Rule 96ZP(1) for the past period, instead of Rule 96ZP(3) is not sustainable and he therefore ordered for immediate recovery of the dues from them as per rules." None appeared for the appellants.2. Shri D.K. Nayyar, ld. JDR submits that Rule 96ZO(3) is carved out as an exception. It stipulates that once an assessee has opted for working under Rule 96ZP(3) a contractual obligation comes into existence between Government and the assessee. He submits that after taking into consideration all the factors, the Government gave the concession of about 25% in payment of duty under Rule 96ZP(3). He submits that once the assessee has opted for working under the provision of Rule 96ZP(3), he cannot change the option retrosepectively for determination of ACP under Rule 96ZP(1). He submits that the entire case is to be viewed in t...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. Rajendra Mechanical Indus. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC138
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the only ground pleaded is whether the period of demand could be limited only to six months from the relevant date as per Section 11-A(3)(ii)(a)(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Both the sides had agreed before him that the classification list had been only approved with reference to the product welded stainless steel tubes & pipes. He had disposed of two Departmental Appeals under a common order holding that the approval given by the Asst. Collector on classification lists merited to be revised.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the Respondents. The notice for today's hearing had been received back from the Postal Authorities with the remarks 'left'. As it is an old matter, in which the Show Cause Notice was issued on 5.7.90 and the duty had been demanded for the period 1.12.89 to 19.3.90, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, Ld. JDR.3. We find the Show Cause Notice in t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Century Pulp and Paper
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC673
1. M/s. Century Pulp & Paper Ltd. Nainital have filed three appeals against denial of Modvat credit. Three appeals have been filed by Revenue against the order allowing Modvat credit on certain goods treating them as capital goods.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that M/s. Century Pulp & Paper Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper. They availed Modvat credit of duty paid on a number of items treating them as capital goods. Lower authorities allowed Modvat credit on some items and denied Modvat credit on other items. Against allowance of Modvat credit on some items treating them as capital goods, Revenue has filed the above-mentioned three appeals whereas the assessee has filed three appeals against denial of Modvat credit on some items which they have treated as capital goods. As the six appeals arise out of the same impugned order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. Shri M.P. Devnath, Ld. Counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC634Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the excisabililty of the steel crushing rings used in a Cement Mill. The respondents M/s. Sayaji Iron & Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. had shown the goods as non-excisable. A Show Cause notice was issued on 23-12-1987 and a duty demand for Rs. 13,291.69 was made on the ground that the steel crushing rings were excisable and dutiable. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise who adjudicated the matter, observed that the goods purchased by the respondents from M/s. Steelcast Bhavnagar Pvt. Ltd. were steel castings and the price ranged from Rs. 1400/- to Rs. 1580/- per piece. The goods supplied to their customers M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd. was the steel crushing rings and value charged was Rs. 6,175/- and Rs. 4,225/- per piece. He held that the rings were manufactured as per the specific design/drawing of the customers and as the assessee had manufactured a new and distinct product, it could not be said that only bought out items ha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Aarti Steels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT546TriDel
1. The Respondents made a request vide letter dated 25-5-1999 to decide the appeals on merits. Therefore, the appeals are being taken up in the absence of the Respondents.2. In the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise allowed the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q as capital goods on the following items: (1) Triple Pole star with Insulator which is a safety device used in isolate input liner against back surge of voltage/current/during arching flash. (2) Transformer which is used to step up heavy current for arching operation. (3) OT cranes and part thereof are used for operation of charging iron and steel scrap, handling of heavy material, ladle filling with molten metal. (4) Electric motors which are used in water circulation system for cooling billets/bloom by continuous spray of water. (5) Electrical resistors which are parts of Resistor box and controls the speed of wire drawing machine. (6) Electrical control panel is a safety device used in switching on/off of...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Bhoruka Textiles
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC285
1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein had imported 57 MTs of polyester staple fibre valued at Rs. 20,07,500/- free of duty against an Advance Licence dated 27-3-1985. Out of the imported quantity, they utilised 18.060 MTs of fibre for manufacture of polyester blended yarn of 90/10 count meant for export and the remaining quantity of 38.940 MTs of fibre was used in the manufacture of 67/33 and 48/52 counts of yarn meant for home consumption, without obtaining prior permission from the Committee appointed by the Government of India as required, under Notification 117/78, dated 9-6-1978. The importers claimed that they were entitled to the replenishment material for domestic production, in the light of ITC Public Notice 156, dated 19-2-1987 which stipulated that in cases where the export obligation have been partially or fully met before making import against the Licence, the manufacturer exporter may utilise the replenished material for further export/domestic p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Aries Agrovet Industries Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC662
1. The lower Appellate authority has set aside the confirmation of duty demand by the Assistant Collector for the period from June to November 1989 on the ground that no show cause notice for the above period was issued to the assessee. It is the case of the Department that a show cause notice was issued for the period June to November 1981 and that the mention of the year 1989 in the demand confirmation order is an error which should be rectified and read as 1981 for which period there was admittedly a show cause notice. It is the contention of the Revenue that the Collector (Appeals) was therefore, required to go into the merits of the demand and that he should not have set aside the AC's order on the ground that no notice was issued.2. On hearing Shri Sangia and taking note of the Order-in-Original No.V (68) 17-CL-23/79/5239 dated 29.6.82 which confirms demand of duty for the period June 1981 to November 1991, we hold that the Assistant Collector's Order in this case requires to be...
Tag this Judgment!Super Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC137Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellants herein filed a classification list dated 22-7-1994 in respect of speakers mounted in wooden/plastic enclosure claiming classification under Tariff Heading 85.18 at nil rate of duty on the ground that conical speakers of Heading No. 85.18 are purchased by them on payment of duty. The said duty paid conical speakers are simply fitted inside wooden/plastic cabinet. Therefore, the product brought into existence by them by the aforesaid activity remains a speaker only and no new commodity comes into existence. The lower authorities have not accepted the aforesaid contention of the appellants and felt that they have undertaken a process of manufacture and brought into existence a new commodity mounted on plastic cabinets or which are described as speaker columns fixed with different types of speakers and joined together in a cabinet. Hence this appeal before us.2. Learned Advocate Shri G. Shiv Das submits that the activity undertaken by them does not bring into existence ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Footwear Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC281
1. In this case, the Customs duty demand of Rs. 80,65,374/- has been confirmed against M/s. Vishal Footwear for contravention of the provisions of Notification No. 339/85-Cus., dated 21-11-1985 as amended and Notification No. 133/94-Cus., dated 22-6-1995, Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,13,394/- has been confirmed in terms of Notification No.5/86-Cus., dated 20-1-1986, penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed on M/s. Vishal Footwear Under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been imposed; further a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed on the Managing Director of the company under the provisions of Customs Act and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under the provisions of Central Excise Act. Imported goods valid at Rs. 2,18,98,263/- have been ordered to the confiscated Under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 12 lakhs.2. The brief facts of the case are that...
Tag this Judgment!