Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments

industrial Electronics and Vs. Collector of C Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT384TriDel

1. The appellant vide letter dated 11-12-2000 made a request to decide the appeal on merits and submitted the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of classification of the Desoldering Pump in their own case.2. Heard ld. SDR and persue the records. In the present case the issue is in respect of classification Desoldering Pump. The appellants wants to classify the same under Chapter Heading 8468 of the Central Excise Tariff and the Revenue classified the same under the Heading 8467 of Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. E/69/98-BL dated 20-1-1998 [1998 (100) E.L.T. 232 (Tribunal)] held that the Desoldering Pumps is classifiable under Heading 8468 of the Central Excise Tariff. In view of the above decision the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....

M/S. Air Conditioner Co. of India Vs. Cce Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s Air Conditioner Co.of India, is whether the Modvat Credit was available to them under Rule 57 H of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri J.S.Agarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants availed of exemption from payment of duty in 1997-98 under Notification No. 75/87-C.E. dt 1.3.87, being a new unit; that expecting increase in sales, they applied for Central Excise Registration which was granted to them on 26.5.1998; that they filed a Modvat Credit declaration on 29.5.98 under Rule 57 G; that on the same day a declaration in respect of inpute lying as such and contained in final products was also filed; that as there was an ommission on their part in declaring all the inputs, they filed an additional declaration on 5.6.1998 under Rule 57 H in respect of evaporator coil/condensor coils and compressor and simultaneously requested for condonation of delay as per provisions of Rile 57 G; that the Deputy Commissioner disallowed the ...

India Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC618

1. When stay petitions came up for orders, we heard Representative of the appellant and Learned Departmental Representative at length. On hearing the arguments we feel that the appeals itself can be disposed of. As agreed to by the Learned Representative of the appellant and Learned Departmental Representative, we are passing final order on these appeals as stated herein below.2. Committee on Disputes by its minutes dated 25.10.2000 accorded sanction to prosecute appeals before this Tribunal. Copy of the Minutes has been made available to this Tribunal as well.3. Appellant was charging from their buyers "other charges/delivery charges" as shown in the invoices in respect of petroleum products.Those charges/delivery charges have not been included in the assessable value for the purpose of payment of Central Excise duty. Hence show cause notices were issued calling upon the appellants herein to state why those charges realised from dealers should not be added to the assessable value. Th...

Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S Universal Auto Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT470TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the goods lying in the factory premises are liable for confiscation under the provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules made thereunder.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents, M/s Universal Auto Products Ltd., inspite of notice. It is also observed that Respondents has not appeared in the past whenever the appeal was posted for hearing. I, therefore, take the appeal for disposal after hearing Sh. A.K. Jain, Ld. DR, and after perusing the records.3. In his matter the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises of the Respondents on 24.12.96. The officers found 1,200 Silencer Bajaj Classic and 1,198 Silencer Bajaj Sunny totally valued at Rs.3,12,046/- in excess of the balance show in statutory record i.e.RG-I Register. The officers also found that 15 Matric Ton of MS Scrap generated during the course of manufacture of finished goods valued at Rs.78,000\- was not record...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S. Rajasthan Spg. and Wvg. Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT328TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether Modvat credit is available to the Respondents M/s. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. in respect of chemicals used for cleaning of D.G. Set under Rule 57A/B of the Central Excise Rules.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the respondents inspite of notice. I observe that even during the last hearing on 6th October, 2000 no one had appeared on behalf of the Respondents. I, therefore, take up the appeal for disposal after hearing Shri A.K. Jain, learned D.R. and perusing the record. The learned D.R. submitted that the impugned goods is a chemical used for cleaning/maintenance purpose of D.G. set and accordingly it cannot be treated as a part/component or accessory of D.G. set; that the chemical cannot be treated as inputs under Rule 57A/57B as these are only used for cleaning D.G. Sets.3. Reference was made to the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Meerut vs. Modi Ru...

Calc India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT172TriDel

1. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether appellants who were manufacturing Wollastonite Powder was marketing it under the brand name 'Kemolit S-3' or not. Collector of Central Excise by Order-in-Original No. 143/93 dated 10-8-1993 came to the conclusion that the goods manufactured were branded goods and so appellants were not entitled to the benefit of exemption as SSI unit.Benefit as SSI unit was availed of by appellants in relation to the goods cleared during the period from February 1990 to 1st June 1991. As a result of their having availed the benefit as a SSI unit, the duty evaded was found to be Rs. 9,39,953/-. As a result of this finding, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the manufacturer company and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on Shri Sudhir Bakshi partner, invoking the provisions contained in Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Learned Counsel representing the appellant advanced an argument that the company produced affidavit from...

Taral Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT469TriDel

1. A demand of duty of about Rs. 70,000/- has been made upon the appellants holding that they had wrongly availed themselves of concessional rate of 30% ad valorem under Notification No. 14/92-CE., dated 1-3-1992 (Sr. No. 30 of the notification). Order-in-Original held that the exemption was available only if the goods were produced out of materials falling under Heading 3901/3915 on which duty of excise had been paid. The order has held that in the instant case the party has not fulfilled the condition of the notification. It also states that the appellants contended that they were not required to produce such proof. Therefore, the held that the appellants have not proved their eligibility and has denied them the benefit of the exemption. Appellant contends that they were rightly eligible for the exemption and the demand of duty is not correct.2. We find from a perusal of the Order-in-Original that the appellant was availing himself of Modvat credit on the various inputs used in the ...

Phoenix International Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC743

1. M/s. Phoenix International Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'PIC) had filed an appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original dated 12.4.99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot (ICD), Tughlakabad, New Delhi. Against the same Order-in-Original dated 12.4.99, the Revenue had filed 10 appeals in which the respondents are PIL, M/s. Phoenix Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'PID'), Directors and other Company officials in the above-named two companies.All the 11 appeals (one filed by PIL and 10 filed by the Revenue) were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. PIL were engaged in the manufacture of footwear. They were exporting footwear to different countries, and under Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme were in possession of quantity based advance licence for import of parts of footwear. They imported vide two bills of entries, both dated 16.2.96, 5251 pairs of footwear uppers. At the same time, 5251 pairs...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bamcee Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT126TriDel

1. This order will dispose of three appeals, one filed by the Revenue bearing No. E/1463/94-B and the other two by assessees namely M/s.Bamcee Ltd., being A. No. E/1337/94-B and Inter-chrome (P) Ltd. No.E/1338/94-B, against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 17-3-94 passed by the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had modified the Or-der-in-Original of the Assistant Collector regarding the excisability of the sheets of different sizes/lengths made by slitting and shearing, from flat rolled sheets in coil form.2. The assessees M/s. Bamcee Ltd. and Interchrome Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in slitting and shearing of coils of CRCA, GI cold-rolled and cold-rolled sheets. They had been receiving duty paid materials from the open market and did the job work of slitting and shearing of the same. They claimed that their activity could not to be treated as manufacture under Central Excise Act and they even did not avail Modvat credit or deemed credit thereon. They accordingly, cleared the slit goods on ...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Agro Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT122TriDel

1. The Revenue is in Appeal seeking to set aside Order-in-Appeal No. 41 (SSR) C.E./JPR/97, dated 1-12-1997. The issue that arose for decision in that appeal was whether the buyer had given an advance of Rs. 15 lakhs to the assessee and whether the sale price was depressed on account of such advance, necessiating addition to the sale price (to fix the assessable value) so as to neutralize the effect of the deposit. Jurisdictional Assistant Collector as well as the Commissioner came to the concurrent finding that the total value of the goods sold was only about Rs. 9.4 lakhs and, therefore, the amount paid of Rs. 15 lakhs cannot be treated as advance, inasmuch as advance would not be much in excess of transaction value. We heard the learned DR. None appeared for the respondent in spite of notice.2. From the facts of the case, we find no reason to hold that the lower authorities made an error. The present appeal has no merit and is rejected....