Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 1 of about 143 results (0.020 seconds)Karam Chand Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT928TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 4-2-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the issue relates to Modvat credit. The appellants have availed Modvat credit on the strength of invoices on which duplicate for transporter. He said that invoices bearing words original/duplicate/triplicate and quadruplicate, no word was struck out in the invoice and in some invoice it was clearly mentioned. The red invoice is meant for duplicate for transporter and in fact he avail credit only on the invoices which are in red colour. The authorities below have rejected the Modvat credit on the ground that the word red do not appear in some of the invoices.3. Shri A.K. Jain, learned JDR justified the action taken by the authorities below in denying the Modvat credit.4. On considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that concerned invoices are red c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modi Cements Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC260
1. This is a Reference Application filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur against the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/1066/97-NB(DB) dt. 4-11-1997. In Para 8 of the Reference Application, the applicant Commissioner has formulated three questions as under: (i) Whether Modvat credit taken by M/s. Modi Cement Limited in their RG-3A Part-II in August 1993 in respect of HDPE woven Bags/sacks received by them during October 1987 to October 1998 finally assessed to duty under Heading 6301.00 of Central Excise Tariff and had paid duty accordingly at the manufacturers end (factory of origin) would be correct, legal and proper. Specially when there is neither a revision in the classification nor a variation in the rate of duty/duty paid at the factory origin, and pre-requisites of Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules was not complied with. (ii) Whether in regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is proper, correct and legal to hold that the Modvat credit taken after a laps...
Tag this Judgment!Delco Precitone Jewellers (P) Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC437
1. The first of the three appellants (hereinafter referred to as M/s.Delco) is a 100% export oriented unit established for manufacture of studded jewellery in the Special Export Oriented Complex, Jhandewalan (in short, JJC). Under Customs Notification No. 3/88-Cus, dated 14.1.98.issued by the Central Government under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, the goods specified in the Annexure thereto, when imported into India for the purposes of use in the manufacture of jewellery for export out of India by 100% EOU established in the above Special Export Oriented Complex were exempt from customs duty and additional customs duty, subject to the conditions laid down under the Notification. Gold was one of the goods specified for such import. M/s. Metal and Minerals Trading Corporation (in short MMTC) was the nominated agency to import gold for being supplied to the jewellery units in JJC including M/s.Delco. MMTC had obtained a private bonded warehouse licence for the said purpose and had als...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Akruti Video Club
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT838TriDel
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the Revenue. They challenge the correctness of the Order-in-Original No. 34/MP/90/Addl. Collr./SRT, dated 18-12-1990. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows.2. On the allegation that the respondents herein were engaged in getting the blank video cassettes recorded from various dealers and agents and used to supply recorded video cassettes on monetary consideration, proceedings were initiated against the respondents for realising a sum of Rs. 1,88,130.00 by way of duty. In the proceedings, the claim put forth by the department was disputed. Addl. Collector dropped the proceedings relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Associates and Ors. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, 3. Additional Collector dropped the adjudication proceedings by his order dated 18-12-1990. An order No. 143-R/91, dated 12-12-1991, was passed by Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs in exercise of the powe...
Tag this Judgment!C.G.M., Telecom Factory Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT464TriDel
1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of tappered steel tubes for telephone/telegraph poles (Hamilton Tubes) falling under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. They filed a classification list w.e.f. 1-3-1994 in which they claimed classification of the above mentioned goods under CET Sub-heading 7326.90 read with the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 197/87. A show cause notice dated 30-8-1994 was issued proposing denial of the benefit of the Notification on the ground that the goods fell under CET Sub-heading 7306.90 which is not specified under the Notification, and proposed recovery of duty of Rs. 94,00,800/- on 115770 Nos. of galvanised steel tubes for steel tubular poles and the Notice also proposed penal action against the assessees. The notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. 27/COMMR/CEX/IND II/98-99, dated 19-6-1998 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, who confirmed the duty demand and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs up...
Tag this Judgment!Monica Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC250
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Monica Electronics Ltd. against the Order-in-Original No. 10/KK/96 dated 21.5.1996, the issue involved is whether the Import-Export Policy existing on the date of issue of licence is applicable or the Import-Export Policy existing on the date of import of goods.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Learned Advocate, mentioned that two value based advance licence dated 29.7.94 and 16.8.1994 were issued to M/s.Onida International Ltd., by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) for export of 1500 Nos. of Onida 17" Black & White T.V.; that these two licences permitted import of T.V. Picture Tubes; that after fulfilment of their export obligation, DGFT granted the endorsement of transferability on these two licences on 2.12.1994 and 8.12.1994; that M/s. Onida International sold these licences to the Appellants. He further mentioned that the Appellants imported Colour Picture Tubes under Bill of Entry No. 108474 dated 3.12.1994 and claimed exemption under ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Jyoti Rubber and Plastic
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC261
1. This is an appeal of the Revenue against Order-in-Original No. 23/92 dated 10.4.1992 of the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The dispute in the adjudication related to import of Polypropylene Moulding Powder, self-adhesive tape and craft paper. The dispute was that the goods had been imported and sought to be cleared in violation of provisions of DEEC pass-book Scheme. The appeal has raised three points in support of the contention that the Order-in-Original is not legal or proper. The first ground is that in similar cases involving DEEC Pass-books, the Collector had passed adjudication orders which are at variance with the impugned order. The second submission is that 24.75 metric tonnes of Polypropylene for which M/s. Polyethylene International had filed Bill of Entry as actual user, could not have been imported by that party as they had imported the goods without obtaining SSI Certificate, the SSI Certificate being dated 3.1.1991 and the import being on 30.11.90. The third ground i...
Tag this Judgment!Prescast Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC137
1. This appeal has come up before a Larger Bench of five Members on reference made by a Bench of two Members, evidenced by miscellaneous Order No. E/151/97-B. The question that is referred is whether in terms of Notification No. 43/75, dated 1-3-1975, aluminium castings made from ingot are eligible to exemption from duty. Short facts necessary for understanding the issue raised are as follows.2. Appellants manufactured aluminium castings falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 26A(ii) from aluminium alloy ingots. These ingots were purchased from M/s. Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Phoenix Metals Pvt.Ltd. who manufactured them from waste and scrap purchased from open market. M/s. Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Phoenix Metals Pvt. Ltd. removed these ingots for supply to appellants without payment of duty claiming exemption under Notification No. 43/75, dated 1-3-1975. A demand of Rs. 7,34,047.29 for the period from 1-9-1983 to 31-12-1983 was made on the appellant alleging that conditions ...
Tag this Judgment!Samtel Electron Devices Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC300
1. When these appeals came up before a bench of two Members that bench referred the matter to a Larger Bench since the amount involved in the appeals was very huge.2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows : M/s. Samtel Electron Devices Limited (hereinafter referred to as SEDL) is the main appellant. They are engaged in the manufacture of electron guns, vital part of television picture tubes/Another company called M/s. Samtel Colour Limited (hereinafter referred to as SCL) is engaged in the manufacture of picture tubes which are sold to manufacturers of television sets. SEDL sold substantial quantity of their produce, namely, electron guns (more than 99%) to SCL at price of Rs. 250 to Rs. 226 in the case of 14" and Rs. 260 to Rs. 252 in the case of 21" during the period 1-4-1993 to 28-2-1998, that is, the period with, which these appeals relate. Duty on the above produce was paid by SEDL at the above price and SCL availed Modvat credit on its use in the...
Tag this Judgment!Nitul Data Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC335
1. When the stay petition came up for orders, we heard learned Counsel representing the appellant and the learned D.R. in extensio. On hearing them, we feel that a quietus in this appeal cannot be given in the absence of evidence establishing the factual position. So, we consider it proper to remit the matter to the jurisdictional authority to pass fresh order adjudicating the show cause notice.2. The short facts necessary for understanding the issue raised in this appeal are as follows.3. Appellants manufacture display monitor and computer parts. Bulk quantity of the goods manufactured by them is purchased by Wipro. While they were paying duty on the value of the goods realised from Wipro, demand-cum-show cause notice dated 29.4.1993 happened to be issued demanding a duty of Rs. 7,20,012.00 towards basic excise duty and Rs. 57,060.00 towards special excise duty, invoking the provisions contained in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and why penalty under Rule 173Q of the Cen...
Tag this Judgment!