Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 32 of about 321 results (0.018 seconds)Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC660
1. At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellants, Shri Jitendra Singh raises two points: 1. That although the appellants received the notice of hearing for the pre-deposit waiver application filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and argued the stay application, the lower appellate authority (whose order is challenged in the present appeal) not only disposed of the stay application, but went on to decide the appeal on merits against the assessees without affording them an opportunity of being heard on the merits of their case. 2. That although in their appeal to the Collector (Appeals), the assessees had raised the plea that the demand was partly barred by limitation, there has been no finding on this aspect in the impugned order, which, therefore, suffers from the vice of being a non-speaking order.2. Learned DR, Shri Udhoji fairly leaves the matter for decision by the Bench as he is not in a position to controvert the submission regarding violation of principles of na...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Delton Cables Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC137
1. In this appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, the question relates to the excitability of cut pieces of insulated pieces of wire and cables in jumbled mass form, containing copper, plastic and steel. The department had sought to demand duty on the copper, plastic and steel components of the said pieces of wires and cables. By order in Original, the duty demand was confirmed. Collector (Appeals) had observed that while the Assistant Collector having herself admitted that the waste and scrap was in the form of jumbled mass consisting of copper, plastic and steel, there was no possibility of segregating the constituents and charging the duty separately on such constituents, such jumbled mass can be considered only as waste and scrap. Since the items have already been identified as waste and scrap, Collector (Appeals) held that such waste and scrap was not excisable and hence not chargable to duty.2. Ld. SDR Shri R. K. Sharma, arguing the grounds of appeal had sub...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Moulds and Dyes Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC136
1. These are three appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Appeal dated 11.8.92 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. Following the Tribunal's decision, the appellate authority had dismissed the applications filed by the Department against the orders sanctioning refund in favour of the respondents M/s. Moulds and Dyes Pvt. Ltd. 2. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts on record. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue had pleaded that while the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had followed the Tribunal's decision in the case of Moulds and Dyes Pvt. Ltd. Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay , the said decision had been appealed against by the Department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was submitted by both the sides that the appeal against the Tribunal's decision aforesaid had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of course on the ground of limitation.3. Ld. Departmental Representative had...
Tag this Judgment!Shekhar Brothers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT284TriDel
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether Modvat credit will be admissible on PVC sheets used for making containers to contain set of tools.2. Sh. J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate submits that the appellants manufacture different type of tools. He submits that for the purpose of vehicle, the set of tools are sometimes prepared and sold along with the vehicles. He submits that for containing these sets of tools, the appellants utilised PVC sheets for making containers. He submits that when the appellants submitted CL for approval in which they declared that the cost of packing material is included in the assessable value of the final products and therefore admissible to Modvat credit. He submits that while denying the facility of Modvat credit on PVC sheets, the lower authorities observed that no Modvat credit will be admissible on packing materials. He submits that similar issue came up before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ponds (India) Limited [1993 (63)...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC121
1. Shri T.C. Gupta, Ld. Counsel reports compliance of Stay Order No.S/243/99-NB and submits that in the main case the Tribunal has already disposed of the appeal in terms of its Final Order No. A/441-43/99/NB dt.4.6.99. He submits that under para 4 of the said order the Tribunal had ordered: Having regard to the fact that there is nothing on record to show that any hearing was granted to any of the applicants, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof and set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals by way of remand to the Commissioner of Central Excise who shall furnish copies of the relied upon documents to the third applicant herein and hear all the applicants before passing fresh Order.He therefore, prays that since in their case also no opportunity of being heard was extended to the appellant, therefore, the case may be remanded to the adjudicating authority.2. Having regard to the fact that this appeal also arises out of ...
Tag this Judgment!Muzaffarnagar Refractories P. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC661
1. In these cases the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 175/86 has been denied to the assessees herein w.e.f. 30.10.87 on the ground that they were registered with the DGTD, which registration acted as a bar to the availment of exemption with the issue of Notification 244/87 dated 30.10.87 amending the conditions of sub-para (b) of para 4 of Notification 175/86; as a result of denial demand of Rs. 1,03,044.42 has been confirmed and this gives rise to Appeal No.E/5526/92-D. The other two appeals viz. Appeal No. E/2505 and E/2506/92-D are for refund of duty paid under protest from December 87 onwards on the ground that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of duty free clearances.2. We have heard Shri Bipin Garg, learned Counsel, who contends that the assessees applied for being registered as an SSI Unit in November 87 itself and the certificate of registration was issued in April 88 and that the certificate should be treated as effective from the date of application i....
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC273
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the notional profit 10% is to be added in the assessable value of goods captively consumed when the Respondents M/s Haryana State Electricity Board is incurring loss as per balance sheet.2. Shri P.K. Jain, Ld. S.D.R. submitted that H.S.E.B. is showing loss in their audited Balance-Sheet in respect of generation and distribution of electricity and not in respect of the goods which are manufactured and captively consumed and accordingly the Notional Profit as per the provision of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules has to be added in the assessable value. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Apollo Zipper Company (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Calcutta . He finally submitted that if an assessee is having more than one unit, the Profit and Loss of the unit which is making the goods which are captively consumed is only to be taken into consideration.3. Shri J.P. Kaushik Ld. Advocate, submitted that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vikash Metroll Private Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT666TriDel
1. Arguing the stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.13,80,710/-, Shri R. Krishnan, ld. Advocate submits that the Collector has determined annual production capacity based on the formula which was not disclosed in the SCN. He submits that the Collector while determining the annual production capacity also held that since the applicants had opted for provision of Rule 96ZO (3), they could not claim the benefit of Sub-section (4) of Section 3A. He submits that the issues in regard to the option of Rule 96ZO (3) vis-a-vis provision of Sub-section of Section 3A came up for decision before the Tribunal in the case of Meenakshi Castings decided by the Tribunal in their final order No.85-86/98, dated 19-1-1999. He submits that this issue also came up before the Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of Sarwotham Ispat Limited and the Hon'ble High Court took the similar view as was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Meenakshi Castings. He submits that the applicants h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Times Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]241ITR509(Delhi)
1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions, in respect of the assessment year 1985-86, for the opinion of this court :'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenses of Rs. 31,56,117 spent by the assessed on repairs and replacements of central air conditioning plant were of revenue nature ? 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that a deduction of Rs. 9,07,358 was allowable to the assessed under Section 32A on fire-fighting equipments ?' 2. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee-company had claimed Rs. 31,56,117 as repairs and replacement of central air conditioning plant and insulated chilled water piping re-routing. Re...
Tag this Judgment!Katari Coloring Factory Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(51)DRJ498; (2000)ILLJ1041Del
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Hopefully, this decision Will bring an end to this litigation which has been pending since 1973.2. The Petitioner is a partnership firm which came into existence on 1st April, 196 with three partners namely, Amar Singh Katari, Sant Singh and Jagdish Singh. The business of the firm is to manufacture ink. The firm is said to maintain two premises both of which are registered for the purposes of sales tax under the local laws as wellas under the Central Sales Tax Act. The premises are also registered under the provisions of the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954. 3. Sometime in August 1969, Respondent No. 1 asked the Petitioner to furnish information for the purpose of examining whether the Petitioner would be covered by the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 which is now known as the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. The Petitioner supplied the inf...
Tag this Judgment!