Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments

M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd., Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC83

2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and articles thereof falling under Chapter 76 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Alumina is extracted from Bauxite ore in the first stage, aluminium metal is extracted from alumina in the second stage and the metal is made into billets thereafter. The aluminium billets are then used for the manufacture of a variety of extruded products in the extrusion plant. The entire quantity of billets manufactured by the appellants are not so captively consumed in the manufacture of final products (extruded products). A part of the billets production is removed from the factory on payment of duty for home consumption. During the period, 1991-92 to 1996-97 (upto 09.07.1996), the appellants manufactured and cleared 138.278 MTs of aluminium billets for captive use in the manufacture of extruded products which were supplied to M/s Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation for use in the manufacture of artificial limbs. The ...

intron Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT290TriDel

1. This is an application for restoration of appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide Tribunal's Final Order No. 1081 /2000-B dated 10-7-2000.2. Ms. Sruti Chaudhary, learned Advocate, submitted that notice for hearing of the appeal on 10-7-2000 was not received by the Advocate on record as she had changed her residence from Sarvodaya Enclave to Som Vihar Apartments, New Delhi and on this account no representation could be made on behalf of the applicants; that the applicants are interested in prosecuting the matter. Shri M.P. Singh, learned D.R. opposed the prayer submitting that the Advocate should have intimated the changed address to the Tribunal and the notice was also sent to the appellants.3. We have considered the submission of both the sides. We find that the Advocate remained absent on the date of hearing on account of non-receipt of notice of hearing. No doubt it was required of the Advocate on record to intimate the change in her postal address.However, we are of...

Laurel Organics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT495TriDel

1. The stay application of the appellant/manufacturer and its Managing Director are taken up for disposal, after hearing the learned Advocate and the learned DR.2. Consequent to the search and seizure operations conducted by the Anti-evasion Officers, a show cause notice was issued, which as is submitted by the Advocate that the same has not been received by the manufacturer but has been received only by the Managing Director and the Commissioner after following the procedure of natural justice came to a finding that the duty of Rs. 11,81,120/- was evaded by resorting to clandestine removal of certain bulk drugs, as alleged in the notice was established and consequent to that, the Managing Director who had admitted to be in the knowledge of those clandestine removal. The M.D.and the manufacturing assessee rendered themselves liable for penalty.The amount of Rs. 11,81,120/- paid before the show cause notice was ordered to be appropriated against the duty demand determined by the Commis...

Jay YushIn Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC193

1. The appeal has been filed by M/s Jay Yushin Ltd. being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No. 38/98 dated 31.12.98 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise, Delhi-III, confirming the demand of Rs. 55,91,225 and imposing a penalty of equal amount Under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, holding that the cost of the component, received by them free of cost and used in the manufacture of final product, should be included in the assessable value of the final product.2. We heard Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, Ld. D.R. for the Revenue. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal on a reference made vide Misc. Order No. 26/2000 A dated 11.5.2000, has answered the reference as under: (a) Revenue neutrality being a question of fact, the same is to be established in the facts of each case and not merely by showing the availability of an alternate scheme. (b) Where the scheme opted for by the assessee is found to have been misused (in contradist...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Entremonde Polyecoaters Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC220

1. This appeal has come up before us on a reference made by a Bench of two Members evidenced by Miscellaneous Order No. M/69/2000-D dated 30.8.2000. The question referred is: Whether the product manufactured by the respondents is eligible for concessional rate of duty in terms of serial No. 2 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 63/87-CE dated 1.3.1987 for the period from 1.3.1987 to 11.6.1989? 2. Revenue questions the correctness of Order-in-Original No.416/CEX/93 dated 23.12.1993. That order happened to be passed by Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad in a proceeding initiated pursuant to show cause notice dated 5.6.1992. Respondent, Entremonde Folycoaters Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of impregnated, coated, covered or laminated cotton textiles classified under Chapter 59 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They claimed concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 63/87-CE dated 1.3.1987. As per the show cause notice, responde...

Cce Vs. Rolax Applied Components

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(95)LC227Tri(Delhi)

1. The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of auto parts and auto -accessories and availing modvat facility of duty paid on inputs. During the course of investigations in 1987 that they were taking credit of duty paid on certain inputs without bringing the inputs into their factory and without utilising them in the manufacture of their finished products. It was admitted by the assessees that while the inputs were required for electro-plating of their products, they did not have electroplating facility in their premises and thus they were getting this process done on job work basis. Due to violation of the provisions of the Modvat Rules by taking credit without obtaining permission for the job work in terms of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, a show cause notice was issued on 30.6.1989 proposing recovery of inadmissible credit of Rs. 8,64,983.58 taken during the period 1.4.1986 to 4.8.1987. The notice also proposed imposition of penalty under Rule 57-1 of the Cent...

Cce, Bhopal Vs. M/S. Jabalpur Oxygen Co.,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Oxygen. During the period 01.03.1978 to 30.06.1980, they collected Rs.45.00 per Cu/Meter from their customers towards delivery and collection charges in addition to the approved prices of the goods. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner took the view that the said charges collected from the customers should form part of the assessable value of the product and, accordingly, confirmed a demand of duty amounting to Rs.7,089.00 against the party in adjudication of show-cause notices (SCNs) issued earlier. Aggrieved by the order of the AC, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the AC. The Department preferred appeal to this Tribunal against the order of the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal and held that the delivery and collection charges were not includible in the assessable value of the product. It was also held that th...

Shri Narinder Singh Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT362TriDel

1. The appellant has filed this appeal against imposition of penalty on him.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Customs Authorities had information that M/s.Bajaj Machine Tools were fraudulently claiming huge amount of draw back by exporting cheap 'cast iron drills, by misdeclaring the same as "high speed Steel" for machine drills. A consignment was intercepted by Bombay Customs, the container was found to contain 600 cartons containing 1796 pcs of identical metal drills.The samples were taken for examination. The second container was called back from Dubai. On examination 600 cartons each containing 3 pcs of identical metal drills was detained.Representative samples were drawn and sent for test. M/s.Geo Chem Lab after analysis of the samples of the goods contained in these containers were found to be samples of cast iron. The goods were, therefore, seized as they were liable to confiscation. The statement of the various people were recorded.Investigations revealed that M/s...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Duracell India

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT303TriDel

1. This is an application filed by Revenue for condonation of delay. In the instant case ld. DR argues that there is a delay of about one month and three days. He submits that since the issue has to be settled after consulting different offices it took sometime. Ld. DR, therefore, prays that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.2. Shri Ashok Dinghra, ld. Consultant submits that the authorities below have not explained delay of each day as held by the Apex Court that each days' delay must be explained adequately. He submits that the Department has given the reasoning for preparing an appeal. He submits that since the delay has not been explained properly and adequately, therefore, the application may be rejected.3. I have heard the rival submissions. I find that in a Govt.organisation, consultation at various levels is necessary. In the instant case, I find that the delay is only of 33 days or so. The delay does not appear to be of a substantial quantum. In the circumstances,...

Dlf United Limited and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ867

Devinder Gupta, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment of Additional District Judge, Delhi in Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 1.9 and 20 of 1966, answering the references and thereby determining the amount of compensation payable for acquisition of land situate within the revenue estate of Kharera, Delhi. 2. Through notification issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 21.11.1962, a plot of land measuring 9 bighas 5 bids was comprised in Khasra Nos. 279 (3-0), 621/280 (2-5), 622/280 (1-19), 619/283/1 (0-9), 620/283/1 (0-8)and 284/1 (1-4) situate within the revenue estate of Kharera, Delhi was notified for being acquired for public purpose, namely the Planned Development of Delhi. This plot of land was held by D.L.F. United Limited and was reserved by it for the purposes of school in its approved colony, namely Hauz Khas enclave. Preliminary notification was followed by declaration under Section 6, which was made on 15.2.1963...