Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments

C.S. Forgings Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT292TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the benefit of Modvat credit was denied only on the ground that the invoices were computer generated and serial number was not printed on the printed stationery.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants availed the benefit of Modvat credit on the strength of computer generated invoices. He submits that the only ground for denial of Modvat credit is that the serial number on the invoices was not pre-printed.3. He submits that CBEC issued a circular No. 482/48/99-CX, dated 25-8-99 clarifying that in case the credit is taken on computer generated invoices, the credit should not be denied only on the ground that the invoices were not having the printed serial number. He submits that in view of this circular, the credit cannot be denied to the appellants. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.4. Ld. D.R., appearing o...

Commr. of C Ex. Vs. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC196

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order in appeal dated 11-10-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order in original dated 4-12-1997 confirming the duty demand of Rs. 85,771/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 2000/- on the respondents.3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of sewing thread.They were also found to had manufactured wax washers from the duty paid paraffin wax procured form the market in their premises valued at Rs. 4,86,286.27 during the period October 1992 to February 1994 falling under sub-heading 9602.00 of the CETA and captively used the same without payment of excise duty amounting to Rs. 85,771/-. They were accordingly served with a show cause notice dated 13-10-1995 vide which they were called upon to pay the duty amount and penalty was also proposed to be imposed on them. They, however, contested the correctness of that notice by alleging that they only melted the duty paid paraffin wax...

Mapra Laboratories P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT695TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Mapra Laboratories P. Ltd. the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 171/70-C.E. is available to the samples of P or P Medicines manufactured by them.2. The appellants under their letter dated 2-9-2000 have requested to decide the appeal on merit on the basis of written submissions and records available. We, therefore, heard Dr. D.K. Verma, learned SDR, and perused the records.3. The learned SDR submitted that the appellants manufacture P or P medicines and avail of exemption under Notification No. 171/70-C.E.dated 21-11-1970 in respect of samples drawn for quality control purposes as per provisions of Drugs & Cosmetics Act; that the Additional Commissioner denied the exemption as the samples were not packed in a form distinctly different from regular trade packing as required under the Notification; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the appeal filed by them on the same ground holding that it has not been disputed by ...

Sunil Nanda and anr. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(96)LC355Tri(Delhi)

1. These are two applications filed by Shri Sunil Nanda, Proprietor of M/s. Poonam Cargo Services, and by Shri Rajeev Malik for waiver of pre-deposit of Penalty amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs each imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) under the Impugned Order.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that I.V. Cannula and 3-Way Stopcocks were imported by two importers, namely, M/s. Medisource Agencies (P) Ltd. and M/s. Medisphere Marketing (P) Ltd.; that Commissioner, under the impugned order demanded duty and imposed Penalty on the importers by denying them exemption under the Notification No. 23/98 and imposed penalty on these two Applicants holding that they were under obligation to bring the fact of earlier import of the impugned goods on payment of duty and as such both (of) them were responsible for misdeclaration. The learned Advocate further submitted that there was no misdeclaration at all on their part; that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of CCE, Coimbatore ...

Maxxon India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT502TriDel

1. These are seven appeals. Four appeals have been filed by M/s. Maxxon India Ltd. and three appeals have been filed by the Department. As the issue in all these seven appeals is common, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appeals arise out of the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The main issue decided by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was whether paring and scrap generated in the process of manufacture of BOPP films is liable to pay duty if cleared. The learned Commissioner held that the paring, cuttings and scrap are not liable to pay duty in terms of the provisions of Rule 57D of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.The Commissioner also held that the granules manufactured by M/s.Maxxon India Ltd. on recycling of the waste and used in further manufacture of BOPP films are not liable to pay duty. The learned Commissioner, however, held that granules obtained after recycling of the scrap and cleared at nil rate of duty were lia...

A.R.D. Polypacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT693TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. A.R.D. Polypacks (P) Ltd. is whether Machchar Jali and Hexagonal nets are classifiable under Heading 39.25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) or are classifiable under Sub-heading 3926.90 of the Tariff. Shri B.B. Gujral, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture netting of plastic in rolls from the duty paid polyethylene granules; that these nets are of uniform quality and are of general use; that the Assistant Commissioner under Adjudication order No. 87/98 dated 17-6-1998 had classified their products namely shopping bag net, packing net, protective sleeving net, poultry cage floor net, serimount net under Sub-heading 3926.90; that, however, in respect of their remaining two products namely, Machchar Jali and hexagonal net, the Assistant Commissioner classified them under Sub-heading 3925.30 holding them akin to the article mentioned in ...

Cce Vs. Srikant Fab-tax (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC349

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 21.6.2000, the issue relates to the duty liability as job workers, of the appellants, who are engaged in the process of heat setting and stentering of the fabrics received under the cover of challans issued under Rule 57F(4) of the Rules from various manufacturers in June, 1997. They after doing the above-said process, had sent back the fabrics to those very manufacturers from whom they received () without payment of duty. They were served with show cause notice dated 18.11.97 for payment of duty amount of Rs. 94,927. They contested their liability to pay the duty as job workers. But the Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the duty demand on them through Order-in-Original dated 6.4.98. But in appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) through impugned order reversed the same by following the ratio of the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of D.K. Processors Pvt. Ltd. Pali v. Co...

M/S. Sonal Processors I() Pvt. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above cases involved a common issue and hence are taken up for hearing and disposed of by this common order. The details of the duty confirmed and penalty imposed are as under:-Sl.No. Appeal No. Duty Penalty 2. For the reasons recorded below, we dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalty arising as a result of determination of annual capacity of production by including the length of galleries in the length of stenter, proceed to take up the appeals themselves for hearing since the issue stands settled by the decision of Larger Bench in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Limited Vs.CCE reported in 2001(127) ELT 679. The Larger bench has held that the length of galleries are not to be purpose of computing the annual capacity of production in terms of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. Therefore while following the ratio of the larger bench decision and holding that the length of gallery is required to be excluded, we s...

Stick Travels (P) Ltd. Vs. Ethiopian Airlines

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(58)DRJ119

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The controversy that has arisen in this present dispute centres upon the interpretation that is to be given to Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Ethiopian Airlines had appointed Messers Stic Travels (P) Ltd. (STIC) as their General Sales Agents (GSA) but this engagement was ended by the Airlines with effect from 20.12.1994. The disputes which consequently arose were to be resolved through arbitration. Since Ethiopian Airlines did not react appropriately, STIC filed Suit No. 2713 of 1994 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In the course of these proceedings, late Justice G.C. Jain was appointed as an Arbitrator by Ethiopian Airlines and Mr. C.S. Agarwal as an Arbitrator by STIC. Justice Avadh Behari Rohtagi was thereafter agreed upon as the Third Arbitrator and Chairman. These persons thereupon constituted the Arbitral Tribunal. Proceedings commenced on 16.9.1995 and Claims were preferred and evidence by way of affidavits was led by both sides befo...

Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(128)ELT353(Del)

ORDERM.K. Sharma, J.1. The present proceedings is the second bout of litigation between the parties. By the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the provisions of Sub-section (1A) of Section 14 and Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 156 of the Customs Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) as also Rules 3, 4, 9(c) and 9(e) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' for short . The writ petitioners have also sought for a further direction prohibiting the respondents from acting pursuant to the letter of demand dated 28th October, 1997 issued by the respondents.2. The petitioner No. 1 - Company carries on the business of manufacturing, amongst others, high quality sponge iron, hot rod coils and plates. On 24th March, 1987, the petitioner No. 1 - Company entered into an agreement to purchase a plant for manufacture of sponge iron which was originally installe...