Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 6 of about 321 results (0.010 seconds)Galani InfIn Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC74Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Galani Infin Pvt. Ltd. filed three Shipping Bills Nos. 05775 dated 23-1-1996, 05773 also of the same date and 06358 dated 25-1-1996 for export of 7125 pieces of musical greeting cards. Total FOB value of the cards was shown as Rs. 13,37,902.00. The goods were to be exported to Moscow. Shipping Bills declared that they were registered with an RBI Code No. BG-003177 and with Directorate General of Foreign Trade as per No. 0394030281. On examination of the goods by the customs authorities, it was noticed that the real value of these musical cards was approximately Rs. 40.00 per piece, while export invoice showed its value at Rs. 190.00 per piece CIF. Customs authorities thereupon questioned Shri Damodar S. Bulani, Working Director of M/s. Galani Infin Pvt. Ltd. His statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. For a proper understanding of the circumstances under which these musical greeting cards are exported with an inflated value, we read the deposition as...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Amar Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT623TriDel
1.These are two appeals preferred by Revenue against orders dated 10-8-1992 and 31-12-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals) allowing the refund of Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods which were exported out of India.2. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned SDR, emphasised that the finished goods were not cleared for export under AR-4 or AR-4A and as the procedure prescribed for the purpose of export of excisable goods has not been followed the refund of Modvat credit is not available to both the respondents. It was brought to our notice that in the respondents' own matter the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. E/745-746/97-B1, dated 30-4-1997 has held as under :- "The refund of credit of duty taken is admissible subject to such conditions or limitations as set out in the relevant notification. Notification 85/77, dated 1-3-1987 itself specified bill of lading or shipping bill as acceptable documents, on the basis of which export could be proved in this case s...
Tag this Judgment!Vivek Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT539TriDel
1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) held that "As per the definition of the consumer goods given in Import-Export Policy, 1992-97 'consumer goods' means any consumption goods which can directly satisfy human needs without further processing and include consumer durables and accessories thereof. Impugned goods were packed in small consumer packing which are in ready to use condition and no further processing is required to use it. It can be sold across the counters to a common man. It is also confirmed from the literature that impugned goods are ready for use which can be used in industry, agriculture and similar fields. Since the goods are in ready to use condition it is covered under the definition of consumer goods. Importation of the same required a specific import licence". He also held that lower authority rightly confiscated the impugned goods and, he therefore, upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modern Threads (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT358TriDel
1. Revenue has disputed the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), in which the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed Modvat credit as 'capital goods' on (i) PCB Cords and (ii) Electronic Regulator & PVC Flexible Cables. Shri Y.R. Kilania, ld. DR submits that Modvat credit on PCB Cords and Electronic Regulator & PVC Flexible Cables is not admissible in view of CEGAT decision in the case of J.K. Pharmachem Ltd. v. C.C.E.reported in 1997 (21) RLT 868. He also submits that even in the case of Nova Udyog v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, the Tribunal allowed reference to High Court regarding modvatability on 'Wires and Cables'.He also submits that in the case of Southern Iron & Steel Co. v. C.C.E.Coimbatore, this Tribunal has not allowed the credit on insulated cables and Electrical distribution panels. He, therefore, prays that the Appeal may be allowed.2. Shri Jitendra Singh, ld. Counsel submits that PCB Cords, Electronic Regulator & PVC Flexible Cables are used for ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vindhya Tele Links Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT347TriDel
1. Revenue has filed this appeal agitating the allowance of Modvat credit on capital goods such as "Power Cables, Nut Bolts and Screw, Thermo Couple, Steam Generator and Gear Pump'. Revenue has placed reliance on the terms used in the Explanation under Rule 57Q, especially the definition of"capital goods' for the purpose of Modvat credit. I have heard Shri N. Khaitan, ld. Counsel for the Respondents and Shri Y.R. Kilania, ld. JDR for the Appellants. I have also perused the definition of "capital goods' under Rule 57Q. I have also examined the use of the items agitated against by the Revenue. In so for as Tower Cables' are concerned, I find that this item was discussed at length before the Larger Bench of this Tribunal and this Tribunal in that case held that Tower Cable' was a modvatable item under Rule 57Q.[This decision has been taken in the case of Jawaliar Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47].2. Insofar as 'Nut Bolts and Screws' are concerned, we note that these are no dou...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. New Allenberry Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC111Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the notional interest on advances received from the customers is to be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by M/s. New Allenberry Works .2. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned SDR reiterated the grounds of appeal as contained in the memorandum of appeal filed by the Revenue. He also reljied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box India Ltd. v. C.C.E., 3. Shri Y.K. Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that even in the Metal Box case, the Supreme Court has mentioned that there has to be nexus between deposit of money by the customer and the price at which the goods are sold to such customers. The Collector (Appeals) has rightly held that the Department has to show the extent of benefit obtained by the assessee on account of interest free loan and how it has led to decrease depression of the price. Learned Advocate submitted that the matter has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.S.T...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Agro Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC273Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 58/92, dated 13-8-1992 of the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur.The Collector had dropped recovery proceedings initiated under show cause notice, dated 21-4-1992 against the respondents.2. The respondent is a public limited company. Notice for hearing could not be served on the company as the same is remaining closed for a long time. Accordingly, notice has been served on the respondent under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by affixing the same on the main gate of the Unit by the Central Excise authorities. They have submitted Panchnama prepared evidencing such affixing of the notice.3. The respondents are manufacturers of sulphuric acid and oleum falling under sub-heading 2807.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were collecting 4% to 10% of the price of the goods under heading "S.C." They explained that these Service Charges were collected towards cost of servicing of...
Tag this Judgment!Easter Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1034TriDel
The appellants herein are manufacturers of polyester filament yarn. They were paying duty on a certain rate on 15-12-90. A Notification was issued enhancing the rate of duty on the said product. However, the said Notification came to the notice of the Revenue as well as the assessee on 19-12-90. As a result, the appellants herein had been paying the duty on clearance of the polyester filament yarn at the lower rate as it was hitherto prevalent prior to 15-12-90. On 19-12-90 and 21-12-90, the officers of Central Excise debited the enhanced differential duty which arose during the period 15-12-90 to 18-2-90 in two instalments. Later on the appellants herein filed a refund claim of the aforesaid amount of duty debited by the officers in the PLA account maintained by the appellants. A Show Cause Notice was issued by the Revenue proposing to reject the refund claim so filed by the appellants on two grounds; (i) that the duty has been correctly charged inasmuch as the enhanced rate of duty ...
Tag this Judgment!Mittal Containers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT741TriDel
1. The appellants have filed appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of the Asstt. Commissioner disallowing the Modvat credit but reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- through impugned order dated 26-3-1999.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under :- 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of metal containers.They claimed facility of Modvat scheme under Rule 57 of the Central Excise Rules during the month of September, 1996 on the strength of invoices No. 53, dated 3-9-1996 and 56, dated 12-9-1996 issued by a registered dealer M/s. Arora Tin Stores, Delhi. They were issued show cause notice dated 21-1-1997 by the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise Muzaffarnagar by alleging that Modvat credit amounted to Rs. 30,243/- on the basis of above said two invoices have been wrongly availed as those invoices were not authenticated by the Central Excise officer as required under Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Karam Chand Appliance
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT739TriDel
1. Question involved in this appeal of Revenue is whether dilution of Altherin to 3.6% concentration (w/w) from 90% concentration brings into existence a new excisable commodity known to the market having different name, character or use and therefore, whether the new product so brought into existence by dilution will be liable to duty again.2. We have heard the learned JDR, Shri Ravinder Babu in support of Revenue's appeal. His vehement contention is that earlier concentrate of the said chemical was to kill larger insects and the present product only kills mosquitoes. He, in fact, submits that mosquitoes are merely paralysed or immobilized. They are not even killed but we note that this contention is not substantiated by the learned JDR because there is no evidence of it on record. Authorities below have treated present product as mosquito destroyer which means it kills mosquitoes. He, therefore, urges that the use of the product having undergone a substantial change, the process of ...
Tag this Judgment!