Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments

Unipatch Rubber Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT348TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Unipatch Rubber Ltd., the issue involved is whether criss-cross patches of vulcanised/unvulcanised rubber, manufactured by them, are classifiable under Sub-heading No.4008.21 and 4006.10 respectively as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order No. 873/98 dated 28-12-98 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or under Sub-headings 4016.99 and 4006.90 respectively as claimed by the Appellants.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate explained the process of manufacture as under :- Tyre cord fabric is coated, clicked into widths and chopped into small pieces, sizes as per specifications ; the small pieces are assembled; a minimum of two layers (which may go up to eight) of cord fabric are placed one over the other in criss-cross fashion; top and floater gum and layers of cord fabric are built into one unit which is covered with top and floater gum and is clicked to flower shape with die; at this stage an unvulcanised pa...

M/S Shree Shyam Filaments Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Having carefully examined the records and heard both sides, we feel that this is a fit case for final disposal at this stage and, accordingly, we allow this application unconditionally and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself finally.2. The adjudicating authority had confirmed a demand of duty amounting to over Rs. 11 lakhs against the appellants. The party preferred appeal against the order of adjudication to the Commissioner (Appeals) and also submitted application for waiver of pre-deposit. The lower appellate authority passed an order, in that application, directing the party to deposit an amount of Rs.5 lakhs. The deposit was not made in terms of that order. Subsequently, the lower appellate authority rejected the party's appeal on account of non-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as per order dated 12.10.2000 which is impugned in this appeal.3. It is submitted by Sh. Keshav Maloo, representative of the appellant-Company that the entire amount of Rs.5 lakhs...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kanpur Plastipack Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT826TriDel

1. The Revenue has preferred the above appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad holding that the appellants are entitled to refund of credit of Rs. 1,16,28,268.60 P.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP Tapes, Fabrics and Sacks - both laminated and unlaminated, for the manufacture of which, they were using High Density Poly Ethylene (HDPE) or low density Poly Ethylene (LDPE) granules falling under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985.Upon the introduction of new Excise Tariff effective from 28-2-1986, they wrote to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector on 23-7-86 seeking permission to clear tapes, bags and fabrics as classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Tariff. They were advised to classify tapes and fabrics under Chapter 54 and woven sacks under Chapter 63. The respondents filed a classification list under protest effective from 31-3-86, classifying HDPE tapes of width not e...

Ujjaval Unique Tech. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT230TriDel

1. The issue involved in the present appeal, filed by M/s. Ujjval Unique Tech. Pvt. Ltd. is whether Master electricity meter, Remote Terminal Unit and Line Amplifier are classifiable under Sub-heading 9028.30, of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act (CTA, in short) as claimed by them or under sub-heading 8517.80 as other apparatus of carrier current line system as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order.2. Shri R. Parthasarathy, ld. Advocate, submitted that all the three items imported by the Appellants are integral components of the system to accurately measure/monitor the amount of electric power consumed and consequently the assessment of all the three items should be made under subheading 9028.30 C.T.A. He explained that Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) is installed at any existing Watt-hour meter in the premises of individual consumer, that R.T.U. will read the consumption and using existing power lines for data Communication, transmits consumption and...

Toyo Engineering India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC755

1. The Bench which heard the appeal filed by M/s. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal No. 3772/88, dated 07.11.1988, holding that the machinery and equipment imported by them could not be classified under Heading 98.01 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and denying the benefit of Project Import under the Project Import Regulation, has referred the following questions to the Larger Bench: (i) Can the benefit of the Notification be denied to the appellants on their admission of imported goods after being fully utilised for the specified fertiliser project, is then taken for use, if they are still available for other project? (ii) Whether the expression 'specified' in the Tariff item 84.66 of CTA includes named project in a particular place or in several places? 2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants are engaged in the setting up of industrial units such as fertiliser plant; that M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilisers Coopera...

Ginni Filaments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC550

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd., is whether excise duty is demand-able in respect of the parts of bailing press, procured by them duty-free under Notification No. 57/94 dated 1-3-1994 and destroyed in fire on 28-2-97.2. Shri J.M. Sharma, learned Consultant, submitted that the appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) engaged in manufacturing of cotton yarn and knitted fabrics; that they purchased a plant, including the Bailing Press for packing of cotton waste in 1994 against C.T.-3 form without payment of excise duty; that the Bailing Press was installed in Waste Godown as per the approved site plan; that due to a major fire which took place on 28-2-1997 and continued till 2-3-1997, bailing press was damaged; that they had duly informed about the fire on telephone on 28-2-97 to the Superintendent, Central Excise who had also visited the site on the day of fire; that, however, the intimation in writing was given to the Superintenden...

Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT675TriDel

1. Appellant herein is M/s. Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd., M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. is the holding company of the appellant. Another company by name M/s. Super Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. was also held by M/s.Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. Super Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. manufactures soap under the brand name 'Margo' which belonged to the appellant. Royalty for using the brand name 'Margo' was fixed at Rs. 5500 per MT. Over and above the said payment of royalty, appellant was to get a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as annual technical know-how fee. A sum of Rs. 35 Lakhs was given to the appellants by the holding company, namely, Shaw Wallace & Co.Ltd. The said transfer of the amount to the appellants was taken as an attempt to evade payment of duty by the manufacturer of soap. In the proceedings initiated by the departmental authorities for such evasion, appellant was also made noticee. The action proposed by the Department was challenged by the appellant contending that the amount received was by way o...

Hind Metals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT822TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 18-11-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of modvat credit was denied to the appellants.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that in this case show cause notice was issued to the appellants for denying the benefit of modvat credit in terms of Rule 57H(1)(b) of Central Excise Rules on the ground that the assessee has not explained as to how much quantity of inputs, for which the claim was lodged, was used in the manufacture of final product cleared on payment of duty and how much quantity of input is under process. He submits that in spite of these allegations in the show cause notice, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order denied the benefit totally on different grounds such as the invoice, in question, did not contain the particulars of rate of duty, etc. and no declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules was filed. He submits that in these circumst...

Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT707TriDel

1. These petitions are for stay of operation of the order passed by the adjudicating authority levying duty on concrete mix used by the appellants in the construction of Hydro Electric projects in Himachal Pradesh. In the case of Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium duty demand of Rs. 2,64,86,965 for the period from April, 1993 to March, 1998 was made. Same amount has been levied by way of penalty as well. Against M/s. Continental Foundation duty demand is more than Rs. 54 lacs for the period from April, 1994 to May, 1998. Identical sum has also been claimed by way of penalty. M/s. Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture, appellant in the third appeal has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 70.96 lacs by way of duty for the period April, 1996 to March, 1998. As against this appellant also an identical amount has been claimed by way of penalty.The firm M/s. Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation Ltd. has been found guilty of offence falling under Rule 209A of the Rules and a penalty of Rs. 30 lacs has been impose...

Jasvinder Singh Vs. State and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ3242

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.73/99 of P.S.Naraina registered under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of IPC pending in the court of M.M., Delhi. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:2. On 31.3.1999 some officials of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) raided the premises of the petitioner, WZ-430 Village Naraina, and reported to the police about the theft of electricity against the petitioner. Delhi Vidyut Board lodged an FIR bearing No.73/99 dated 31.3.1999 at P.S.Naraina under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of IPC for the alleged theft of electricity by the petitioner.3. The petitioner applied for the anticipatory bail and the learned ASJ was pleased to grant him anticipatory bail.4. It is not disputed that the petitioner after the receipt of the impugned theft bill of Rs.1,38,243.77 deposited...