Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 26 of about 261 results (0.011 seconds)Cce, Ahmedebad Vs. M/S Dyestuff and Intermediates,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC57
1. The dispute involved in this appeal of the Revenue is the classification of "copper complex" manufactured by the respondents.While the assessee claims classification of the product under Tariff Sub-heading (TSH) 2922.00, THE Department claims it under TSH 3204.29.The Assistant Collector classified the product under TSH 3204.29. The Collector (Appeals) classified it under TSH 2922.00.2. There was a drawal of sample of the product for chemical test in 1988 and the report of the Chemical Examiner was as under: "The sample is in the form of bluish coloured liquid. It is composed of an aqueous ammoniacal solution of copper complex, an oxygen function amino compound." On the basis of the above report, the assessee filed classification list No.4/88-89 effective from 01.01.89 claiming classification of the product under TSH No.2814.00. The Department issued a show-cause notice(SCN) directing the assessee to show cause why the product should not be classified under 3204.29. The party contes...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maikal Fibre Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC254
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the validity of the Order-in-Appeal dated 23-2-99, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals), has reversed the Order-in-Original dated 22-11-97 making demand for additional duty of Excise on the Cotton Yarn & Cotton Waste cleared for the "Domestic Tariff Area (DTA)" sale by the respondents, for the period March, 95 to July, 95. "The Respondents are 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Cotton Yarn & Cotton Waste. They cleared soft waste for D.T.A. sale during the period 16-3-95 to 31-7-95 without payment of additional duty. They were accordingly called upon by the Asst. Commissioner vide communication dated 22-11-97 for payment of additional duty amounting to Rs. 1,56,846/-. But this communication of Asst. Commissioner was challenged by them before the Commissioner (Appeals), who treated it as Order-in-original and set aside the same, on the grounds that the Respondents were entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 55/91 ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Maikal Fibres Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC543
1. This order will dispose of two appeals Nos. 2332 & 2333/2000-D filed by the Revenue against the common Order-in-Appeals dated 28.4.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal, vide which he had modified the Order-in-Original of the Asst.Commissioner raising the demand for the payment of duty on the Cotton Yarn, from the Respondents. The appellants are 100% EOU and are manufacturing Cotton Yarn of Chapter 52 of CETA '85. They cleared certain quantity of Cotton Yam in D.T.A. Sale, during the disputed period without payment of appropriate duty. Accordingly, they were served with Show Cause Notice vide which they were called upon to pay duty amount demanded. After getting reply to those notices, wherein respondents denial their liability to pay duty as demanded. The Asst. Commissioner, however, confirmed the demand on them vide Order-in-Original dt. 24.9.98. This order of the Asst. Commissioner was challenged by the Respondents before the Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Amtek Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT295TriDel
1. In this case Modvat credit of Rs. 22,20,301 has been disallowed on capital goods not found physically in the premises of the appellants who are manufacturers of forged items falling under Chapter Heading 8708 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and availing Modvat facility under Rules 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, on 27-2-98 when the Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises. Penalty of an amount equal to the duty has also been imposed upon the Company and a penalty of Rs. 1 lac has been imposed under Rule 209A on the Deputy Manager (Accounts), second appellant herein.2. We have considered the rival submissions, we find that the capital goods had been shifted to the sister unit of the company, namely, Amtek India Ltd. without raising any modvatable invoice and the machines were removed under the cover of photostat of original invoice duly endorsed in the name of Amtek India Ltd. on 25-2-98 and 26-2-98. Since the machines were removed without intimation to the pr...
Tag this Judgment!B.T. Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT297TriDel
1. Arguing on the application for condonation of delay of three months in preferring the above appeal against the order dated 21-3-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise who has partly disallowed the abatement claim filed by the applicants who are operating an Induction Furnace for manufacture of Non-alloy steel Ingots/Billets, Shri K.K.Anand, learned Counsel stated that during the pendency of the disposal of the abatement claim, the applicants had filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court praying that they may be permitted to pay duty on actual production basis instead of lumpsum basis as provided under Rule 96ZO(3) and the High Court had accepted their plea and the Assistant Commissioner had worked out duty liability on actual production basis. The Commissioner passed an order dated 15-3-2000 in compliance with the High Court direction and determined the duty liability on actual production basis. Subsequently, they were informed by the Superin...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsay Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT789TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 21,21,385/- upon the appellants herein who are manufacturers of PP medicines falling under CET Sub-heading 3003.10, by denying them the benefit of SSI Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 as amended and Notification 1/93 dated 28-2-1993 as amended, holding that the appellants are owned and controlled by another Company viz. Shree Baid-yanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., Naini, carrying on the same business of manufacturing and selling allopathic as well as ayurvedic medicines falling under CET Sub-headings 3003.10 and 3003.30 respectively, and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 21 lakhs upon the appellants.2. It is the contention of the appellants who are represented by their Counsel, Shri Vivek Kohli, that non-issue of show cause notice to M/s.Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., whose clearances have been clubbed with those of the appellants itself vitiates the entire...
Tag this Judgment!G.M. Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT280TriDel
1. This appeal arises out and is directed against the impugned order dated 13-9-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) New Delhi.2. The appellant M/s. G.M. Engg. Works engaged in job work of machining/finishing of vehicle parts supplied to them by M/s. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. The show cause notice has been issued demanding duty of Rs. 2,67,539.20 ground that M/s. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. has not followed the procedure as prescribed under Rule 56C of the Central Excise Rules.3. Arguing for the appellant Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate submitted that activity undertaken by the party did not amount to manufacture and there is no finding by the authorities below on this important issue.As can be seen from the show cause notice as well as in the respective orders it is clear that party is engaged in the job work of machining and finishing of motor vehicle parts falling under Tariff Item 68. He also submits that demand is barred by time in the absence of allegations of suppression made in the show ca...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-iv Vs. M/S. Printpak Machinery Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1234; (2000)164CTR(Del)581; 89(2001)DLT601
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. These two references are inter-linked and the following questions have been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short the 'Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal'). The first question has been referred at the instance of the Revenue, while the second question has been referred at the instance of the assessee. '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in allowing the assessor's claim to the extent of Rs. 75,500/- for technical know how in terms of article 7 of the agreement dated 28-12-1971 for the assessment year 1974-75? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in rejecting the claim of the assessed for deduction of the full amount Rs. 1,51,500/- for the assessment year 1974-75?' 2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1974-75 and relates to a claim of deduction of Rs. 1,51,500/- against the business profits on...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Printpak Machinery Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Del)581
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.These two references are inter-linked and the following questions have been referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), by the Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'). The first question has been referred at the instance of the revenue, while the second question has been referred at the instance of the assessee.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in allowing the assessor's claim to the extent of Rs. 75,500 for technical know-how in terms of article 7 of the agreement dated 28-12-1971, for the assessment year 1974-75 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in rejecting the claim of the assessed for deduction of the full amount Rs. 1,51,500 for the assessment year 1974-75 T'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1974-75 and relates to a claim of deduction of Rs. 1,51,500 against the business pr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Brinda Kumari
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2002]253ITR343(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the directions given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court:'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in treating that the construction of the flats in 'Akash Deep Building' was made by the assesses ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was entitled to exemption to capital gains under Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the flats constructed in the 'Akash Deep Building' were constructed within two years from the date of sale of property No. 9, Hailey Road, New Delhi ?'2. The basic dispute in the case related to the assessed's claim of exemption under Section 54(1) of the Act. The late Maharani of Palitana was the owner of the properties situated at 9, Hailey Road, New Delhi. She was residing i...
Tag this Judgment!